 All right, so Susan Audette here. Jacqueline Gardner here. Jamie Wagner here. Yes. Oh. Yeah. Yes. Okay. Thank you. All right. Also like to announce that we will be recording this meeting and also pursuant to Governor Baker's March 12, 2020 order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law, general law chapter 30 a section 18. This meeting of the board of registrars is conducted via remote participation. Also announcing that Amber Martin will be taking minutes for this meeting today. Okay. So the first, first agenda item that we have is the election of a chair for this meeting only. Are there any motions nominations? Yes, I nominate Jamie Wagner. I second that. Any other nominations? Oh, I'll third it. You're third in it. Sounds like long after the second. Okay. Okay. Well then, since we've got a third, a second. Can we vote on Jamie Wagner being chair for today's meeting? All in favor. Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. It's so voted that all in favor for Jamie Wagner being chair of this meeting today. Hopefully you're okay with that, Jamie. I think so. I think that's pretty straightforward. Okay. All right. So then I will, I will hand it off to you. Right. Well, thank you. So I would say that I think kind of one of the first things that was brought up was I'm trying to pull up my, my minutes and something in my car. Trying to take a vote on the public comment. Okay. I think we should allow public comment. Anyone has the motion for that. I moved to allow public comment for the meeting. And I'll second it. All right. I, was the second we should vote. Madam chair through you before you take a vote. I just wanted to address the issue of the meeting agenda. Okay. A question has been raised as to whether there can be a public comment. If public comment is not a specific agenda item. In my opinion, it can be. However, any such public comment would need to be limited to the items that are specifically listed on the agenda. Okay. Can I ask a question? Why, why is that so? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know if it's the limitation or what's the excesses of what those public comments should contain. Yes. Through you, madam chair. So the meeting order is controlled by the chair. And it's the chair's responsibility to ensure that the discussion at the meeting is kept to the items that are identified in the meeting notice in other circumstances where there is a public comment on the meeting agenda. In those circumstances, comment can be more broad. However, here. There was no indication that there would be general public comment. And therefore, while the chair in her discretion does have the ability to allow members of the public to comment, it has to be with respect to matters that are on the agenda, because that is those are the only matters that are properly in front of the board at this time. And I guess that would be up to the discretion of the chair and the members of the board of registrars. Through you, madam chair, that it's it's up to the discretion of the chair. She is the person who's responsible for keeping order at the meeting and determining who should speak and when. Yes. And with all due respect, attorney Carbo, it is up to the discretion of the chair and it's up to, we can put it to a vote. That's not actually when you say part of the agenda. It is part of the agenda, but it's up to the discretion of the chair. It's not a legal issue in other words. Through you madam chair, it is legal issue because the open meeting law states that you cannot discuss matters that are not part of a properly noticed meeting. And here again, general public comment was not part of the meeting notice. It was not part of the public comment. It was not part of the public comment. And therefore it's my opinion that it is a legal requirement. That any public comment allowed. Be limited to the items that are on the agenda. So my understanding of the law and I'm not an attorney. But in, in reading of it that there's the law does not block public comment. What I'm saying is that, that comment has to be related to the matters that are on the agenda. But that's part of your opinion. So the board is not discussing the matters if the public makes comment about it. That's, that's not my understanding. We could simply decide to have public comment. As to the matters that are on the agenda. That's correct. I just, I'm, I'm trying to understand what you're saying, because we have no way of knowing. What the public's comments will contain. They all have a time limit. Right. So they all have a time limit. There is no public comment section. Of this meeting. And therefore. When the, when the board. Discusses the matters that are on the agenda, they all have a time limit. So the public comment section. And the chair in her discretion can recognize people to speak. Those matters. This is a different circumstance. Then other circumstance in which you have listed. Public comment as a separate and specific agenda item. Okay. Well, it's up to madam chair, but, um, I believe the board has discretion to allow for public comment. The public has a right to speak. Public comment. I'm going to be a horrible chair. So I'm sorry for you guys to, you know, go through all this, but when I'm looking at the list of topics for today, we have the election chair, which we did the open meeting law complaint. From Miss Carol Gray. And then the acknowledgement of the complaint. Like, I'm not seeing. And that's why I just want to start so I can clear it up. I'm not seeing in my inbox. I don't know where it's going off of. Can somebody forward that to me? So I can have. An act. I like, I don't know where it's not in my folder. So I'm sorry about that. I have all the minutes. Okay. I'll find it for you. Sorry about that guys. Yeah. No, no worries. I appreciate you again, taking on the chair. Roll Jamie. But it is simply up to your discretion. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Just as a reminder, sent us today. That we could vote and whether to allow public comment. So. I guess I think we should, my opinion is, is that we should continue to have public comment. Hold on. I'm trying to find meeting minutes. I mean, Agenda. Your agenda. I'm going to, I'm getting there. Okay. Okay. All right. Yeah. Five 24. Here we go. Okay. It's on its way. Okay. I don't know why I. Yeah, I don't know. I did send them, but that's okay. Yeah. It's probably been a lot of emails. Stuck in with one of them somewhere that I'm just not getting to it. There. Okay. That's exactly. Okay. That's what I was saying. So. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know as far as, I mean, we voted on allowing the public comment. And then I suppose we need to. Do we need to vote again? If we, you know, or has this why I just feel foolish not knowing really how to. No, I think it's up to your discretion. It's up to your discretion, madam chair, whether we should have public comment. And it should just be broadly stated public comment. And it should just be the public comment. And it should just be the public comment. And it should just be the public comment. And it should just be on how long public comment should be. So there is that restriction that's already built in. So I might speak. We built in a limitation time wise for the first two meetings, but we haven't really specifically stated whether there's a limitation for time on this meeting. It's been different each meeting. So that would be something to determine how long you would allow the public to speak for. And I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. And I think that's a good point. And the next thing to again is he's not a signer on. He's just simply, you know, an attorney. Outside the auspices of the town. Has written the board has discretion to allow for general public comment. The fact that the board will not discuss matters, not noticed in the agenda. Does not mean that the public is blocked. From making general public comment. So. I would suggest that it's open. All right. Well, I would say that. Is that where we should start then with the public comment and. Go from there. As far as that goes, I think it's, is it Sean that's on here? That kind of has to let people. Who want to raise their hand to speak. Yes. Yeah, that's correct. So. The audience can raise their hand and then. Are you able to see the list of attendees? Jamie. I have a list of attendees. Yes. And I don't see anybody with a hand raised. So if people have comments, they want to make. Yeah. For the one person who. Died and just hold on one second. I can look up that code. Back in the office because my plan of hiding that way late. But I'm going to sign into Sean from my computer just so I have that so I can use. I can see things better on my computer. Not have to flip back and forth on my phone. Yeah. And so for the one person who joined via telephone, I'm going to use the code is star nine. If you'd like to raise your hand. All right. So I'm in with my computer now too. So I have, I can. Sit back and forth over there. I still don't see anybody with their hand raised. Do we. Do we call it with nobody wanted to speak? Give them a minute. Yeah. I would say. In the past few meetings, you had hands fight at this point. I don't see anybody with their hand raised. All right. So at this point, not seeing any hands, I guess we can close the. Public comment portion of the meeting. Move on to the. Acknowledgement of the complaint and review it and discuss it as the board. Are we going to go over the minutes first. Had it in the order. We can do that. Doesn't matter really. I'm just kind of. Was just reading off of. Oh, okay. Yeah. It's just usually minutes or first before. It's kind of strange, but. Well, we can do. I'm just trying to look at the review. Yeah. So we can, if you want to review. Clearly you can see that this is new to me. Cause I'm. Thank you for taking it on. Right. Okay. I'm just going to second for open meeting law complaint. Ms. Carol Gray dated May 14th, 2021. Acknowledgement of complaint. Review and discussion of complaint. So that was where I was headed next. Okay. So is that what we're going to do then the open meeting law or the minutes? I think we should do the open meeting law complaint because that's the second item on the agenda. Okay. And then I'm going to pull that up on my computer now too. Sorry for my make everybody's seasick looking back to my phone, my computer, my phone, my computer. So is there any, does anybody have any discussion regarding that? This is the different open meeting law complaint than the first one. There's any discussion on that by the board. I think. Go ahead. Oh, okay. Thank you. Well, I think that number one failure to create and maintain accurate minutes of the past three board of registrar's meeting. We have 30 days in which to create minutes. So, and we've clearly created minutes. They are here before us all the past three meetings. So that one is moot. Can I ask a question? And I, to be honest, I didn't look this up, but I was thinking about this. Yeah. So would the now, since all the meat, the meetings are recorded on, on tape or so, so to speak. It's sort of like. Well, I don't know, like augments, the meetings, a minutes, or can they be, you know, interchanged or, or, or what is their role? In other words, that's what I'm trying to say. I mean, that's a turning horrible question. Yeah. Yeah. Through you, madam chair. May I answer? Thank you. Through you. So under the open meeting law, you are required to keep and maintain minutes of all your meetings, regardless of whether those meetings are recorded either by video or audio recording. And the official record of your meeting is in the minutes. And there is at least as the law stands now, no specific obligation to either create such a video or, or maintain it in any particular way, but there are strict requirements for keeping minutes. So you do have to have a written record of your meeting, which is comprised of the date, time and location of the meeting, the identity of the members present and absent, all votes taken and a brief description of all the items discussed. Okay. Thank you. Cause I wasn't sure, you know, because of the COVID and stuff and, you know, video has been allowed and that kind of thing as far as what we stood, but thank you. So point of discussion. We were just sent. Meeting minutes. So this isn't her complain is valid. In the sense that the meeting minutes were not. Posted soon after. So all of the minutes have now been published together. So I wouldn't say she doesn't. Attorney Carol Gray doesn't have a valid point. Madam chair through you. Can I respond? Yes. Thank you. The open meeting law requires that your meeting minutes be created and approved within a reasonable period of time after a meeting. The regulations of the attorney general clarify that that period of time is either within the next three meetings or 30 days, whichever is longer. So in this case, the first meeting occurred on April 21st. This is the third meeting after that. Therefore you are still within the required time. For creating and approving those minutes. There is no requirement under the open meeting law or anywhere else that your minutes be kept on the town's website. It is not a requirement. It is not a requirement. It is not a requirement. They are public record from the moment they are created, whether they are in draft form or in final form. And they do have to be disclosed to a requester upon request. However, posting them to the website is not a requirement of the open meeting law. And therefore it is not a violation to not have done so prior to today. So are we taking the open meeting law complaint point by point? I think we can. You have other things. So inadequate notice of items to be covered in the meeting. Again, I find that part of the complaint valid. I myself. Did not understand what was being sent out within the email. And I again have doubts that the public. And it is unfair to assume. And put the onus on the public to try to decipher. Charter language. About the posting for the meeting. It was not clear. And it was not clearly stated. That is not the subject of the discussion here today. That is a separate and previous open meeting law complaint. That was fully discussed at a past meeting. And is not part of the meeting notice. For this meeting. The only open meeting law complaint that is before you. Is the one that is dated. May 14th. And the first item on that is failure to create. And maintain accurate minutes of the past three. Board of Trustees. And maintain accurate minutes of the past three. Board of registrar's meeting. I recommend that you confine your discussion. To the items raised in that May 14th complaint. As anything else is not. Part of this meeting. So this is not the continuation. That we had set forth. About our previous discussion. We have never completed that discussion. That is correct. This is not a continuation of any previous discussion. There's nothing in the meeting notice to suggest that it is. Oh, that's problematic. So if we continue on with this open meeting law complaint for now to work continue working through this. So is there any other comment on the failure to create, maintain accurate minutes of the past three board of registrar's meetings? I think that's fair. I think that was answered in that last one. Yeah, it just seems like it's a chicken and egg story because we are. Discussing this open meeting law complaint. And we have not gone through the minutes and approve them. That, and these are minutes. I've just been issued. So. It just seems. In reverse to me, but. I'm just going to take a few minutes as the board to review the minutes of. That we were sent today and then discuss those. When I guess just let me know when. When you're ready to discuss Jackie. And then we'll. Just take a minute and look at them. Yeah, I think that would be helpful. Hi with me and Jamie. One thing, two things about the minutes. Number one, I apologize. We spelled your name wrong. We fixed it. Yeah. You probably bring that up. Yeah. Yeah. No, you probably see that all the time. You do it. But I should be correct. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. No, we caught it and fixed it. And. Secondly, there were. Yeah, we rushed to get these done. So after going back and reading them again for a few. A couple of times we realized we've left some sections out, which we'll discuss with you when we get to them. So today. Yeah. I think we'll, you know, there'll be revisions obviously. And then I think we should get together again and approve them final. Once those revisions have been made. Okay. So yeah. Thank you. Okay. Now do you guys want to go through like the May 10th meeting or, you know, in order to April 21st and May 7th and May 10th, you discuss them individually or do you want to look at them all as a whole and then discuss them as a whole. No, I'd rather go through them by meeting. Okay. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I agree. So why don't we start there? And then when you're ready to discuss, just let me know. So under section under point number two. Of the April 21st meeting delegation of authority. There's no discussion. Talked about as to as to what the motion was on. Okay. So. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. We state that the assistant. Town clerk introduced the matter and asked for public comment. And there were no attendees. And then the board then proceeded to a vote. Okay. Hold up. What's. Yep. So point number two. It just goes right into motion and it's like, well, what's the motion on? So we should describe what the motion was on. So. There were no attendees and the board then proceeded to a vote. That was pretty straightforward. Yeah. So, well, and I watched the tape and that's what there is a contradiction because I wasn't there, but in watching the, the short recording. It is confusing because it's, it's stating on the minutes. They voted three to zero unanimously in favor to delegate the authority and duties listed under the charter. To the town clerk. This was a roll call vote. And it looks like Amber Martin did not vote. So there was no formal roll call vote. And the vote was then it should be two to zero, not three to zero. So there's no record of Amber Martin within the meeting. Voting in the roll call vote. We'll have to go back and listen to it. Okay. Okay. So that's one, and that's a pretty serious contradiction or discrepancy. Within the minutes. It does say, of course, Jacqueline Gardner move seconded by Jamie Wagner, delegate the authority. But there was no motion made by Jacqueline Garner, Garner within this gardener within this. And there was no second by Jamie Wagner. Again, there's this discrepancy. If you, it's only a two minute video. If you look at the video. Those are contradictions. But I do recall. It being. Well, anybody presented that look at the tape again. And see. So you guys will have to, we'll have to look at the tape again. So if I could make a motion. To move that the video transcript of that meeting and the mate, well, we'll get to the others because there are some different discrepancies I've seen in that. But. That those, those videos be attached to the, the minutes. They actually already are. Okay. Well, so what do we do about the discrepancies? In terms of the minutes. I think we're going to have to review the, the, um, sorry. Sorry, madam chair. I'm just jumping in there. Go right ahead. Okay. I think we need to review the, the, the. Videos and then come back again and talk about it. Do we need a motion from D or anybody to. Put out there that we need to review, or is it just something that like. We'll review them. So I move. I move to table the approval of the minutes for April 21st. Any seconds on that? No, not hearing any seconds. Do we need to. Take a vote or do we, well, we wouldn't need to vote because there's no seconds. So then I would say that we need to continue talking about these because I guess we need to approve them or. Reject them. Based on. What we're hearing. If that's, if somebody could just guide me and tell me if that's the correct move to make. So you're saying to approve them all at once. I think that we were going through, I guess, is it, is it our job to approve? Cause I know like through other meetings where we have our board meetings, we have to approve the minutes and then they go on file with us not agreeing. As a group to approve the minutes. We still, I guess need to figure out why we're not. Approving them and review them. And then till we're all in agreeance of. Up where to go with that. Yeah, I believe with Robert. If I make a motion, we vote to, to table it. It doesn't mean that we're not. You know, we shouldn't approve an accurate minutes. Period. Because your minutes have to be, have to have some accuracy and agreed upon accuracy. So if they're inaccurate. Then we have to table it to. Make sure that the video. Matches the transcript. And then vote on it. At another time. Sorry. Jack. What are you saying? I'm sorry. You showed up and. I couldn't hear you. No. Perfect. Perfect. Perfect. So. So. So why don't we. Set these minutes aside and then why don't we move onto the may seventh minutes and review those and then. I have to session about those. Okay, Madam chair, but yeah, we'll have. All right. So we're in discussion for May 7th now? Yeah, I think we want to review those. Okay. In terms of discussion regarding those. 366. All right, so from looking at that, and of course I was in that meeting as well, the minutes read on the motion, Jamie Wagner moved seconded by Jacqueline Gardner to elect Susan Audette as chair for this meeting only. Demetri Shabazz voted to nominate herself. What happened is that Sue said, the first thing on our agenda is the election of a chair and I'm happy to take that role, to take on that role. So that's not an accurate recording nor an accurate portrayal of what happened. Okay. Yeti, can I interject? When I was talking earlier, absolutely agree all of the discussion items before all of the motions were not included. So we do need to go back and re-watch the videos and get all of that information in there that pertains to both sets of minutes. And it's before every section of every motion pretty much. So we have to, yeah, okay, so. Well, so then it should, in a way, should read if we just want to have a synopsis, we need to move for the minutes to reflect that Sue Audette nominated herself to be chair, followed by Demetri Shabazz nominating herself. Yeah. So that'll be included. Madam chair, can I just interject here for a second? Yes. Thank you through you. So with regard to these particular minutes, I've reviewed the draft and it's my opinion that on their face, they're incomplete because they do not include a description of any of the substantive discussions that took place other than what happened during public comment. And so what I would suggest is that this matter be tabled and that each of you can review the draft, watch the recordings if you want to and come back at the next meeting with whatever changes or additions that you want to have to these minutes because you can go through each of the points in this meeting here now, but either way, it's my opinion that these are not ready to be voted on and are not likely to be ready as a result of this meeting. Well, I agree with you to the next set of minutes as well. I agree with you, attorney Carball, as I said earlier. There you go, there's a first time for everything. Okay, so do we need a motion to just take all of the minutes? Are we, do you want to pull May 10th and look at those also or should we just make a motion to table all of the minutes until they're further reviewed and then bring them back to the next meeting? Dee, would you like to make that motion? So I move to table all of the minutes from April 20th to April 21st, May 7th and May 10th for approval at next Board of Registrar's meeting. I second. All right, so let us take a vote. I roll all those and then they're being called. So Jacqueline Gardner, what is your vote? So is that a no or do you abstain? Abstain. Okay. And Sue Adette? Yes, I approve. And Dee Shabazz? Yes, I approve. All right, and Jamie Wagner, yes, I approve. All right, so we will table these minutes until they are, the videos are reviewed and edited and we will take them up at the next meeting. Now my question, I guess to whoever can answer it. Now we, as far as making suggestions or fixing errors that we find personally in the minutes, are we able to edit and send them in or do we need to not do anything? I don't wanna violate any other sort of meeting laws by, you know, marking up a minute and then sending it through email. I just don't know what the, I find an error whether it be my name spelled wrong or something that I found was omitted, but Dee didn't find that. I'm sure she'd love to see it and I'd love to see what she finds. How do we communicate that back and forth with one another? So Madam Chair, through you, what I would suggest is that you each, you know, provide your own markup of the minutes and send those over to Amber. Amber can then circulate them to the group for discussion at the meeting. So it's important to understand that once the, the, you know, the markups are given to Amber and then recirculated, you can't have a discussion back and forth over them, over email. So, you know, you can see those and then bring them to the meeting. The markups will be part of the meeting record. And then at the meeting, you know, you can go through and you can say, okay, we'd like to, you know, accept this change in the first paragraph or not accept that change in the second paragraph or do something completely different altogether. I think that would probably be the most expeditious way to handle it. Okay. And then do we need to set a timeline for this to take place or is that something we can discuss? I mean, do we need to say, I'm obviously by our next meeting, but does it have to be, so we don't violate any sort of timelines for when these minutes are supposed to be submitted to the public or just in general, like I heard people say within three meetings or with 30 days or whatever, but have it, like when do we need to have these? John, yes. Through you, Madam Chair. I would suggest setting a specific meeting day for two reasons. First, you're not a board that has a regular meeting schedule. So by stating your next meeting, it is a bit vague. Secondly, as I indicated, you are required to approve minutes within three meetings or 30 days, whichever occurs last. As to the April 21st meeting, that deadline will have passed if you don't approve those minutes today. So I would suggest that you at least set this matter down for further consideration prior to June 7th, which would be the 30 days from the second set of minutes. And that you try to approve everything there. All right, that sounds good. So we will figure that out further. Now moving on to back to topic to the open meeting law complaint by Ms. Carol Gray dated May 14th, 2021. I guess we can, I could take a few minutes to review the new open meeting law complaint that is in front of us and then discuss it. Does anybody need more time to review it or is everybody kind of reviewed it? So if you could for the matter of the public just restate her complaints and she filed two complaints, I think it would add clarity. You want me to start with, all right. So let me pull it out because there's a lot of... So this new complaint, the date of the alleged violations May 7th and May 10th. She starts off by saying C attached. And her first point is that there's a failure to create and maintain accurate minutes of the past three Board of Registrar's meetings. And I think Sue, do you want to address that again? I think you had met when we started talking about this. Do you want to go into this a little bit more? Yes, sure. Well, we have created them and as was stated a couple of times, now we've done it within the 30 days that we're required. So it seems like that's a non-issue. But they're not approved. They're not approved, but they're created in any form is acceptable. Yeah, that's all I have to say on that. For my knowledge, when were these posted on the town's website? Just out of curiosity. They're not posted, Jamie. We're having no requirements to post. So we haven't approved them and probably wouldn't do until they're approved anyways. Right, exactly. Right. All right. So then moving on to our second part of the complaint was there was a failure to create and approve minutes in a timely manner. I think, I don't know, Sue, you could speak to that again, too, if that goes along with... It does. Similar to the last. The only difference is in a timely manner. And we already spoke to that. And lastly, the third portion is violation of the open meeting law by attorney Goldberg and others for having discussion about the May 4th open meeting law complaint during the board's May 7th meeting, even though it was not on the agenda for that meeting, which kind of piques my curiosity as we've been being encouraged to do the same thing at this meeting. Now, are we in violation of the open meeting law because we've been discussing things that aren't or because we voted and approved it, that it's okay. With that, I don't know if that makes sense or not. So can I try to offer some clarity? What's being referenced are the minutes prior to the meeting officially starting on the recording. On that day, there is a discussion, a recorded document discussion between attorney Goldberg and clerk Audit. So it's a discussion that is occurring and that is part of attorney Carol Gray's complaint. That is valid. Yeah, I'd like to, well, I'd like to ask attorney Corbel if you would mind addressing that. Through you, madam chair, may I respond? Yes, please. Okay, thank you. And through you. So first of all, that was not what my reading of this complaint was about. To the contrary, it was raised by board member Shabazz to discuss the open meeting law complaint during that meeting because it was referenced in a letter that was received by the board the day before the meeting. And I am prepared to support the board's discussions in that respect to the extent that the complaint is alleging that a discussion that occurred between attorney Goldberg and clerk Audit that occurred prior to the meeting and a portion of which was recorded and broadcast to the public is my opinion that that does not implicate the open meeting law. The open meeting law applies to discussions amongst a quorum of a public body with respect to matters within the jurisdiction of that body. The open meeting law does not apply to discussions between individual board members and other individuals who are not members of that board, even if that other individual is employed or contracted to work for the town. So in this matter, you had an individual board member, clerk Audit, speaking with a non-member town attorney, Lauren Goldberg, that simply just does not raise any issue under the open meeting law. The open meeting law does not apply to those discussions. The only way that the open meeting law could apply to a discussion like that would be if a quorum of the board were participating in the discussion. And since that did not occur and frankly, since no one party to that discussion even knew that anyone else could hear it, it does not, in my opinion, raise any issue under the open meeting law. And just, I mean, I'm looking at this, maybe I just printed it again, so I had everything, but in the open meeting, in her complaint, I'm on page three under that section three. I'm not even seeing any of that. Am I missing a page on mine or where is that stuff referenced? I'm basically just seeing when Carol Gray is mentioning time is 11.39 a.m. So it's not even, this stuff isn't even listed, the discussion prior to the meeting. So if I'm missing something or if I'm just not reading that and what I have. I didn't see that either, Madam Chair. So I am looking for that so I can get the exact wording because indeed there was a meeting occurring before the meeting and it was, that would have been a violation from my understanding. Okay, so not seeing that in this section of it, should we have discussion regarding those three items within this open meeting on complaint? Seeing how that is, what is on the agenda to do? As far as what it's asking us to acknowledge, acknowledgement of complaint, obviously by us having it on the agenda, I would assume that is an acknowledgement of the complaint. We've all reviewed it and just discussed the three different sections. I'm not sure as far as how to, if we need more discussion regarding what's within this complaint or what we would need to vote on. I still guess I'm lost. And as the Chair, I guess I shouldn't be, but I just don't know what we vote on with these. I mean, it's here, it's in front of us. It is what it is, what are we voting on with that? Well, voting on this is a violation. Madam Chair, may I address the board? Yes, thank you. Thank you. So once an open meeting law complaint is filed with a public body, the public body is required to review the complaint and respond within 14 business days. That response can either be voting to adopt some resolution of the complaint or explaining to the office of the Attorney General why you do not believe that there is a violation or some combination of the two. What typically happens is that at a meeting like this, the board will vote to acknowledge receipt of the complaint and authorize someone to respond on its behalf. Typically that is the town attorney. However, it could be some other official if you so choose. What then happens is that a response is sent simultaneously to the office of the Attorney General and the complainant. The complainant then has an opportunity to inform the office of the Attorney General as to whether or not they agree with the position taken by the board. And if they don't, then the Attorney General will conduct an investigation and issue a ruling. So in this instance, with respect to the three matters that have been raised, as to the first two matters regarding the timely creation and approval of minutes, I would have to agree that you did not meet the timeliness requirement for the approval of the April 21st meeting because they were not approved within three meetings or 30 days. However, in order to cure such a violation, the board can create and approve the minutes. And so my suggestion for resolving that portion of the complaint is for the board to schedule a meeting at its earliest convenience to approve those minutes. As I previously discussed, there is no violation at this point with respect to the May 7th or May 10th meetings provided that you create and approve those meetings within 30 days of those two respective dates. So before I go on and address the final matter, do you have any questions? So I do, because this is the first time that I've seen minutes. And so my question to Sue Adette, have we had posting of minutes prior to this and am I just missing this information or knowledge as a board of registrar? So as you know, we've had town clerks coming and going before my time. Prior town clerk did do a set of minutes but she did not have them approved. So no, you have not seen minutes in your tenure as a board of registrar. Okay, so part of the open meeting law complaint is that we have some type of training. And if the boards never created or posted minutes before, might we agree to a training with an outside source or resource, not KP law? I think we need to do more than that. I think we need to establish what the board's position is with the town of Amherst and what your duties are. We were talking about, I think in our very first meeting. Absolutely. Okay, there's a few things on the list. So yes, we need to discuss what we can do, not at a separate meeting, what we need to put forward in order to clarify. Basically, yeah. Yeah, because with the discrepancy- What your duties are. Right, right. Because with the discrepancy and the meeting minutes for April 21st, there is no recorded deliberation. And so part of the open meeting law complaint is that there's an assumption that there must have been some type of deliberation for the clerk and the two board of registrars to come to a conclusion so quickly about the signatures and about voting to invest the clerk with the power of approval for the signature. So that needs to be cleared up and training hopefully perhaps will help in that regard. And so that final point within the open meeting law complaint that attorney Gray poses is mixed up with, this not being fully fleshed out and defined. I mean, it's a two-minute recorded meeting and there was no deliberation prior to that. That's... Okay, well, we're not talking about that. And you do get the open meeting law guide and that's what everyone gets when they join a board or committee. There isn't any formal training for anybody else. They just get the open meeting law guide, but I think it would be helpful if we discuss what's in there, if we discuss what the board of registrar's duties are. So is Amber on this? I haven't looked at the- She's taking minutes. Okay, so could Amber clear up? Was there some discussion prior to this meeting? Was there some explanation at all? I would be happy to. And I think it'd be best to hear from Jacqueline and Jamie as well. It was cut and dry. It was black and white. It was one sentence. And I think Jacqueline and Jamie can both attest that there were no deliberation. There was no discussion about anything prior to the meeting. And it's simple as that. Jacqueline, would you be able to reiterate that like you have in the past and Jamie, you as well? Okay. Again, there were no deliberations. And the way I see it is, and maybe it's me and the type on how my mind works is when I saw those citations of the law, I looked up the citations of the law, familiarized myself with them. I also did a little bit of research and I got that CMR 950. And that's how I came to my conclusion. As far as like, there are already laws that are in place. I can't vote a law out. So if the things are already there, they're there. And the same thing as far as like when I entered, I got an appointment of committee handbook. I read this. I read all the materials that were given to me. And that's how I saw like shape my job description. If you want to call it that. Okay, so it was taken on faith about the signatures is all I'm asking. It's in CMR 950 and I think it's 5502. It's in there. And again, as far as like the laws, yes, you have the Amherst Charter, you've got the state's laws, you've got federal laws, you've got so many laws. And it's like they all, so like impact one another. And that's what I kind of did. I did my little research on other things as far as like how impact me as a board member. But that's just how I kind of operate. And Jamie, how about you? Did we have any deliberations prior to after the meeting? No, there was nothing in the email threads. I mean, they're all out there for every, everything went around. It's pretty cut and dry. It was, I looked at it as like a kind of a housekeeping, I guess, so to speak kind of thing. It just, it made sense to take that avenue with what the town clerk's office was suggesting. And it's always done. It was just, for me, there was no question. There was nothing to discuss. It was a, what was that? That's why there was no discussion because there wasn't anything to discuss. It was nothing to discuss. So nothing about discussion. There was nothing to discuss. And then again, you know, as far as like, and I think that people made the mistaken notions as far as this was about petitions, it wasn't about petitions, it was about the whole ball of wax. And that's what we were voting on, whether or not, you know, to me, it was like an awareness thing. And then also to have reviewed some of the content of these things, have we done that? That was my sort of like understanding of the situation. Thank you for addressing that, both of you. You're welcome. Okay, thank you for clearing it up. That's all, if that's what occurred within two minutes and no one questioned the signatures. And again, that's spelled out. Sorry, Madam Chair, but the signatures, again, are spelled out and as far as I get any approvals in that CM, CRMR, 950 or whatever it was, it's addressed in there. And that's like I said, these things that sort of like go hand in hand and we should be up on these things as far as like how this board operates. And again, also you got an appointment committee book. And again, I read all of that stuff. Well, great. So part of the, I'm never phased by anything like that. I am a person that definitely, you know, for the sake of transparency and democracy always, you know, am interested in protecting the voter. I am too. And that's why I like to do the law. I know that. I know that. I'm sorry, can I just interrupt for a second here? At least according to my screen, it does not look like the chair is in the meeting any longer. If that's the case, can we take a moment and see if we can get her back? Okay. Yes, thank you for pointing that out. She should be back. It's like she's disconnected and she should, you know, she's back now, but she does not appear to have audio or video. I'm sure she's working on it. So, and I, is she there? Not yet. Okay. Well, I'll wait to, for my last question regarding that. And it's really about the last thing within attorney, Carol Gray's complaint. But I think it would be very helpful for us to meet and just put down this is, this is what the, and give you a historical perspective of what's happened in the past with the Board of Registrar's involvement with our office. Can we just wait for the, to make sure that we've got everyone on the meeting? Yeah. I was just reiterating something that was already said. I wasn't going to go anywhere new. Yeah. According to the chat, she says she got kicked out. I'm guessing you can probably hear us, Jamie, but your audio is not, I don't know, maybe you can't hear us if your audio is not connected, but you don't have a microphone. Do we want to answer her and tell her that we're waiting for her to try to reconnect in the chat? Can someone send her a text or an email and see if she's with us? I can do that. Oh, excuse me. I just got an email from Jamie and she says, I can't get a new link. The old one is not letting her in. Sean, can you do anything about that? Did everybody get that? Oh yeah. I think everybody should have got that. Jamie, if you can give me a call at four, one, three. I don't know if she can hear the actually sound. Jack, do you? Oh, well, she has another connection here. Do you want me to email her? Oh, I think she may be back now. All right, I'm back. Hey. Hey, so I don't have any idea what just happened. Sorry. So Jamie, we were finishing the discussion about part three and of the complaint. And so I just wanted to ask, you know, the emails themselves for April 20, prior to April 21st meeting are considered part of the conversation or discussion. And amount to a deliberation. So when Amber Martin put into one of the emails that we were going to discuss the petition and then retracted that, that was still, isn't that still considered part of the discussion from my understanding? So that would amount to some level of deliberation. I just think that needs to be stated, you know, whether there's agreement on that or not, that amounts to some level of deliberation prior to the two minute conversation that is recorded. I don't, I mean, as far as from my standpoint, I, once it was retracted, I guess it wasn't in my head when we were having the meeting. So I'm not sure, I don't know, I can speak for Jacqueline on that spot, but I, it wasn't in my head when we were having the meeting. So I don't know that I would have to get clarification as to whether or not that would have to be considered something that should be in the minutes or not. Because the only, oh, may I speak? Okay, the only deliberations I had were the ones inside my head when I was reading. Those are the only deliberations I had. Okay, so, but there's a, since there's cross email and communication across the different emails, I, you know, if we were to make a motion and I'd be happy to make one, that those emails be considered part of the deliberation that took place prior to the 10, the two minute recorded conversation, that there was indeed some level of deliberation. Can I speak? Mm-hmm. So the emails, they had to do with the agenda item. And as far as I'm concerned, sending emails out, which I've been doing, you have to talk about what you're going to be speaking about at the meeting. How else would you discuss what your agenda items are going to be? That's not considered deliberation in my book. Are we, am I talking about something different than what you're talking about? I mean, she was just clarifying an email, an agenda item in her emails. Right, so what constitutes deliberation? The open meeting law defines deliberation as an oral or written communication through any medium, including electronic mail between or among a quorum of a public body or any public business within its jurisdiction. So I'm taking this off of the state, you know, website, what is considered deliberation. And I'm looking at deliberation and electronic communication, which is from the state website for public bodies. And a public body may distribute reports or documents to be discussed at a meeting provided that no opinion of a member of the public body is expressed. So the fact that an email went out to talk about what was going to be discussed is not a deliberation, that's my take. Attorney Corbaugh, do you have a, am I wrong? Thank you, through you Madam Chair, may I answer? Yes. Under the open meeting law, the definition of deliberation excludes communications relating to the distribution of a meeting agenda, scheduling information, or distribution of other procedural meeting or the distribution of reports or documents that may be discussed at a meeting provided that no opinion of a member is expressed. So while these particular emails are not in front of us today, nor are their subject matter, it does not appear that those emails would have constituted a deliberation if you were discussing the agenda as it appears you were. So the emails were, I guess, from what I saw and what I read were more than scheduling. And the agenda was confusing and we are indeed discussing the third item, which is part of the deliberation. Madam Chair, through you again, I think we're conflating two different open meeting law complaints. The third item on the complaint in front of you relates to the discussion that occurred during the May 7th meeting. It did not relate to any emails that may have occurred prior to the April 21st meeting. Would it help if I asked that we put this up on the screen? I can send it over to Sean. Would anybody want that? I think it'd probably be a good idea just for the participants to see if they haven't already. Okay, so let's see. Give me a few minutes here. Attorney Corbill White, Sue does that. Do you have, as far as the three meeting rule and 30-day rule, whichever is latter? So 30 days from April 21st, are they business days or is it just 30 calendar days? It's calendar days. But we're there. So we're waiting for Sean to post. No, you're waiting for me. I have to find it. Give me a few minutes. Yeah. And then you'll be waiting for me. Yeah, it isn't as easy as it looks. Let's see here. Because I have so many folders and files, I have to find it. Let's see, that one was on me 14th. Here we go. No, it's not. Here it goes. Okay, let's see. Let's put it on my desktop. I have too many windows open here. I can't find my desktop. There we go. There we go. It's coming at you, Sean. Page three, Sean. Okay, page three is done. Yep, last page. Get it right there. Nope, keep going. Sorry, page, actually it's not really page three. It's page six. The ones with the numbers. I do. Yep, there we go. That's the one. Okay. Perfect, thank you. So this is item number three, where there was discussion of, there was discussion going on prior to the official meeting. And so it was a violation of the open meeting law because that discussion was taking place and it was being recorded. So there's an actual document. Showing that there's a violation. She just has referenced here. She doesn't have that specifically referenced here, though it looks like it's something that's happening within the meeting that she's referencing here as far as I'm reading it. And I might be, again, missing something, but I've just not seen that before the meeting. There is a recording. And since Sean is on this and he's doing the technical part of this, that I remember clearly after watching the video, because I came on after you all were already on, that there's a video where Attorney Goldberg is advising Sue Adette about particular folks, including me, prior to the official meeting. So there was a meeting. I'm not reading that about. There was a meeting, but there was a meeting going on before the meeting. So here, despite, so in the middle of the paragraph, despite this, Attorney Goldberg continued to advise the board during that meeting that her thoughts about how the open meeting law complaint should or should not be handled. So no, that is different. Oh, may I? Jamie? May I? Okay. I remember though getting an email, but I can't find it right now, but as far as like, there was a little snippet, as far as like prior to the meeting. And I think that that's what they're referring to. Yeah, I didn't get that. It was like a pre-meaning. And I think I got that link also too when I watched it, but I can't pull out of this word, that is what she's making the complaint about. Yeah, but I think that's what she was complaining about. Yeah, definitely. We, I definitely saw that link that was sent around, but I just not seeing, I'm not pulling that out of this section three. But I have a feeling that's what she's mixing it up with. Madam chair, can I address the board? Go ahead. Thank you. And through you. So we can only address what's in the complaint in front of us. And there's nothing in this complaint that I see that relates to or alleges that there was a meeting of the board occurring before the meeting. As I said earlier, there's nothing in the open meeting law that prevents one member of a board from speaking to some other person who is not a member about board business or any other matter. Rather, the way that I see this complaint is that it relates to the open session portion of the meeting in which there was some discussion regarding the open meeting law complaint. And as you may recall, board member Shaba has made a motion at the beginning of that meeting to allow John Boniface to address the board regarding the subject matter of his letter, which had been received the day prior to the meeting. And in that letter, he was addressing the issue of the open meeting law complaint that had been filed. And that was anticipated to be discussed during the May 7th meeting. At various points during the meeting, there were references to that open meeting law complaint and whether the discussion on the merits of the appeal and the objection should be postponed until after the open meeting law complaint had been discussed and decided. And there was discussion about that from attorney Goldberg as well as all the members and members of the public as well. And the way I read this allegation is that the board should not have been discussing that open meeting law complaint because it was not part of the meeting agenda. However, as was specifically noted by member Shaba's in making her motion, the reason it came up was because of the letter that was received the day before. And she even specifically stated that it could not have been anticipated that such a letter would be received. So under the open meeting law, while you are limited to discussing matters that are on your agenda, once an agenda is posted, you are able to discuss matters that could not have been reasonably anticipated at the time that the meeting was posted 48 hours in advance. You are also able to discuss matters that are related to or part of the discussion that was noticed. So in this case, there was a discussion of the appeal and objection to the failure to certify signatures for the voter veto petition submitted on April 20th, 2021. Although you discussed the open meeting law complaint, it was entirely within the context of whether you should be discussing that appeal or whether you should be waiting. And therefore, it's my opinion that by discussing that meeting that was really just tangential to the primary purpose of the meeting that there was no violation of the open meeting law. Yeah, respectfully, attorney, I don't think that's what number three is about. I do think number three is about that snippet and we should all watch it of the meeting that occurred before the meeting. So that- I don't see anything in this that refers to that at all. That's what I'm seeing. That's how I'm reading it. Can you read where it says that? That is how I'm reading. Let me get to it because I was trying to, it's not even reflected that little snippets not reflected in the meeting minutes, which is probably not- That's because it wasn't part of the meeting. Right, exactly. There, but the attorney Goldberg is advising the town clerk and it's not part of the meeting. That's the problem. And the town clerk has every right to receive that advice. Nothing new. I'm sorry. It's new to me for advice to take place before the official meeting and to have a discussion like that. It is a violation of open meeting. And that's what I think is great. It's not a violation of open meeting law. It's referring to you. Because a forum did not participate. Right. There was no forum on the board members. Oh, may I? It was a meeting that- There were two there and then the town clerk. We weren't, I wasn't on when that prior to it, when that first call was happening, when there are the discussion before, I hadn't logged on yet at that. The only time I had seen it was when it was that video that was sent to us. But I wasn't logged on at that point either. I wasn't logged on either. It's an email from Carol Gray on May the 10th. The little snippet. That's where it is. Right. So I think we need to watch it for clarity. But it was a pre-meeting type of thing. Right. Which- So it doesn't mean that open meeting law is just that the mic and thing were set up before. So was- So KP law was acting, was acting on behalf of, was counseling the town clerk prior to the meeting. That's our job. We're the town attorney. She's a town official. Also, D, I was asking for some advice in case I happen to be elected chair because I'm not very experienced with being the chair of a border committee. So I was just really getting protocol on how does the meeting run. I had my Roberts rules of order out as well. And I just wanted to make sure I follow things by the book. That was part of the discussion. There's a bit more in that. But Attorney Corbo, as far as we're looking at the open meeting law complaint that Carol Gray submitted that is dated May 14th, she signed. As far as the violations that you see, you agree that there was a violation with number two, the failure to create and approve minutes in a timely manner regarding the April 21st meeting. But as far as other violations within what is put right here, you don't see any other issues. That is correct, Madam Chair. The only issue is with respect to not approving the April 21st meeting minutes in a timely fashion, which I suggest that you can cure that violation by approving those minutes as soon as possible. And if the board is so inclined by agreeing to undergo training or review of the open meeting law. Otherwise, I do not see any violation of the open meeting law alleged here. And I would suggest that you entertain a motion to acknowledge receipt of the complaint and to authorize the town attorney to respond on behalf of the board. And as far as the response goes, I mean, we should discuss that. Because like you said, we want to acknowledge that we will approve, discuss and approve those April 21st minutes. Because we do, I guess I'll agree that there are some things that we want to add or change in those. And then the training, will we get to review the response? Or will we discuss and let you know what we want within the response before that? So that's up to you. We can put together the response and then send it to each of you and discuss it at a meeting. I'm just looking at the calendar here. So you'd send it to us for approval. Is that what you're suggesting, Attorney Carpo? That's correct. So we have to submit our response within 14 business days unless the Attorney General gives us an extension. So the 14 business days would be. So we would have to have a response in by June 4th. All right. And as far as the April 21st minutes, we need to work on getting those discussed and approved. So can we, should we try to talk about another meeting time now for those? Or should we do the motion to acknowledge the complaint? Or would the board feel more comfortable knowing that we have a meeting in place for the talking about the April 21st minutes? Well, Madam Chair, what I would suggest is that you do try to come up with a date at which we can both have the discussion of approval of the minutes and approval of the response. And so perhaps you can look at dates such as June 1st or 2nd. I'm free on the 2nd or in the afternoon of the 1st as well as 2. So I'm free either day, 1st or 2nd. Yeah, the 1st, I think would, as soon as possible, would be prepped. OK, I'm good. So as the chairs, can I make a motion or should I come from somebody else? We should make a motion. OK, so I don't know if Dee or Jackie want to make a motion as far as acknowledging this overmeaning the complaint and then the remedies at hand. Is that what we should be going for? So don't we have to vote to accept the open meeting law complaint or to refute it? Or are we tabling it for another meeting, the June 1st meeting? Well, this will have to be clarified. I think if you make the motion, I mean, we'll definitely acknowledge it. We agree that there is stuff that needs to be addressed within it, like those April 21st minutes. But I don't know beyond that what attorney Corbett has for insight. What I would suggest, Madam Chair, is that, yes, that you table it until your June 1st meeting. Between now and then, I will provide you all with a draft of the response so you can see it. And then at the June 1st meeting, you can approve or amend that response or do something else. OK. And do we need to vote on tabling it or make a motion to table it? Before we do that, can I make a motion to make sure that all of these minutes from the previous meetings be attached for clarity to this meeting? Which meetings are you talking about? So April 21st, May 4th, or May 7th. Oh, they already are. They already are. OK. Just want to make sure. OK. They were put online this morning, actually. As drafts. Yep. OK. They have to stay in that form until we approve them. OK. So I move that we table. This discussion and the vote on the open meeting law complaint sent by Attorney Carol Gray until the June 1st meeting. I second. All right. Let us take a vote. So the motion by D, seconded by Sue. Jack, you would like to vote? No vote in favor of that, too. Sue, for a good measure, you just give a vote, too. Yes, I approve. Right. I approve as well. All in favor. And Jamie Wagner, I approve. OK. So for June 1st, what time is the afternoon is 2 o'clock good with everyone? 1 o'clock would be better for me if possible. But yeah, 2 o'clock, if that's all we can do. Yeah. Tony Corbaugh, how does your schedule look? I can do one or two. It doesn't matter. Either one. I can move lunches around. I can do one o'clock if that works better for her. Yeah, it's just have a meeting further and later that day. OK. Why don't we say, Jamie? I'm sorry. I'm jumping in. Yeah, one is fine. No, I think I will say June 1st at 1 PM. We will reconvene to further discuss. We'll discuss the open meeting law complaint and to approve the 421 meeting minutes. Yes. Are you going to approve all three sets of meeting minutes? Actually, our good question. Can we go for it? Give us enough time. I would suggest that. So I'm just worried that I would suggest that you at least do the May 7th so that you can have those done within 30 days. So as to kind of avoid what happened at the beginning of this meeting, what do we need to have or be prepared for the next meeting so that we can approve those minutes? Is there stuff that will go around? I know there needs to be addition. So these edits, we have to have, should we have them to Town Hall by a certain date? So we're not all submitting stuff on, you know, May 31st to try to get it in for the first meeting or how should we handle that? May 31st is a holiday. So it's Memorial Day. Right. Yep. Can you have them into us by the 28th? That'll give you guys enough time in Town Hall to do what you need to do to circulate them to all of us. Is there any sort of time constraints on how it's not, doesn't have to be 48 hours to us or any of that kind of stuff? This is simply. No, it's just to give them back to you. Well. OK. So can we make it by? Just four or five. What's the time timeline on the 28th? Yeah, by five o'clock. Yeah, not five o'clock. Let's say actually, let's say 12 noon on the 28th. Oh, OK. That gives us. Well, that gives you a Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and half a day Friday. Because then we have to take that. That's to have your changes to us. And then we have to change. Yep. And that, you know, we're not here Monday, so. Well, through you, Madam Chair, just to be clear, you're not going to incorporate any of those changes at this point. So basically, Amber's just going to go into collect whatever changes any of the other members wish to make and then include them in a meeting packet so that they can be discussed in person at the meeting on June 1st. And with Amber still here, I mean, I mean, I have a mountain of paperwork on my desk that I'm just buried all the time under. I don't want her to get buried under stuff and have to be time crunched. I mean, can we ask for Thursday, the 27th by noon? So she's given more time to actually make the changes and send them around. Yeah, I'm teaching and I can't. That's why I'm like, OK, whatever's the latest I could get. So 12 noon on Friday. OK, as long as Amber thinks that's a realistic time. I guess you just you just do it. Amber's still here, right? Yeah, Amber, how do you? Yes, I am. I'm here. Yeah, so, yeah, that's fine. OK, actually, Amber's off that day. It'll be me. Yeah. So now, basically, I'm just collecting everything from you guys and then I'm going to send it all back out again. So that's fine. Yeah. OK. Yeah. Sounds good. So send it to Town Clerk and Amherst M.A. Dot go. OK. All right. All right. So there's no further discussion. Can we move to adjourn this meeting? So I move to adjourn this meeting. Second that. Well, everybody else want to go? Everyone? Sue or Jackie has to second it. Right. Oh, so Jackie, I'll second it. All right. Thank you, guys. Have a great day. All in favor. Hi. Hi. OK. Thank you. Have a great week. Great job, Jamie. Thank you. Yeah. And you get to do it for the next meeting because you've been elected for this one because it's a continuation. Thank you, everyone. Bye bye. Same. Bye.