 So you can call to order. All right, seeing the presence of a quorum. I'm going to call this meeting of GL to order it is November 17. It is 1032 AM. And pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 this meeting will be conducted via remote means members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so by zoom. So by telephone, I will give you instructions on that if that occurs, no person in attendance. No, excuse me, no in person attendance of members of the public will be permitted but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time via technological means. It's going to make sure that everyone can be heard and seen, though I'm pretty sure that's true. Pat. Hi, whatever. Okay, so they, we have three members this morning. Thirsty is informed me she will not be with us she's ill, and I have not heard from Sarah. She may be joining us later. I'm not sure. Let me just take a quick look at the moment there are no public in present but we'll check later. So I am going to just take a quick look at the agenda with you all and then. So share screen and there it is. Take a quick look here. Is that can everyone see that is that big enough. Yeah. Okay. So we have four zoning laws to look at zoning by loss to look at, and we will do that first. Then I'd like to have a brief discussion, sort of very brief discussion on the thin come interviews. And then item seven is not ready for prime time. We can talk about it briefly but I have nothing to show you item eight. There's lots to talk about and hopefully we'll spend a little bit of time on that. We have two sets of minutes to approve. And at the moment, I have nothing that is unanticipated. So we're going to get right to it. And I'm going to put that away. Okay. And the first item is zoning by law. Let me see article three. So let me find that here. Next building excuse. Okay, that is open. I'm going to put that on the screen. All right. Can. Okay. I just wanted to make sure it was the one from yesterday. This is this is the one you were talking about. No, this is not the one I was talking about this morning. I wanted to make sure this is the one I sent you yesterday. All right, well, let's take a quick look at November 16th at the top. Yeah, it is right. Okay. This is the one that you want us to look at. That is correct. This is the correct one that just CRC recommended yesterday. Okay. And everything, the changes are in front of us. So understanders and conditions, a number of a bunch of texts has been deleted. And then the new text, and please correct me if I'm mistaken here. The new text is this section right here. It is. Yeah, it is all of that, not just what is highlighted in yellow. Okay. All right. So let's take a moment for those who haven't had a chance to look at it. Yep. Could I explain one more thing? And in article 12, if you page down farther, there are two new definitions. Both those definitions that are in bold italic are are proposed for addition. The one highlighted is what came in yesterday and that was in direct response to the attorney defining permit granting authority. And they determined that adding it into this proposal. In the definition section was within the scope of everything but it would obviously apply to not just mixed use revision mixed use buildings that definition would apply throughout the bylaw. So throughout throughout this bylaw, I take it throughout the entire zoning bylaw, not just mixed use bylaw. And how does that work that just that just by putting that in in this particular. Well, because it's going into the definition section definition by law. That's what article 12 is that defines term and that term is used in the parking bylaw it's used throughout and AP law basically said, you should define that. It was in your packet I did. We did not get the official letter but I think that's fine that can go to the council when we actually take this to council. But for us we had an email that basically stated exactly what Mandy has just stated from KP law, giving a clean bill of health to all three of the bylaws will be looking at first, and also stating the point about definition 12.37. That in our packet. There is that little thing George why don't we start down with the definition just a little it looks like in should be in accordance with article three. This is 12.37 permit granting authority 3434 mixed use building mixed use building is a building containing one or more dwelling units in combination with permitted non residential uses in accordance with or accordance with, which with I think is probably it. According to what I think article three. I don't think it could be an in accordance in. No, not in. Yeah, it's got to be with I think in one. I think with. Thank you, Mandy. You're right Pat. I just have a review. Let's just hang on for a second. tracking. And so I'm going to make that change. Why is it not showing. Oh, and because you just have a simple markup it's there. Okay. Well, I should also have what I should have. If you change the simple to to all. It'll show. Thank you. I feel better when I see it. Thank you. I like the color. Yeah, I change. Okay. All right. Let's since we're down here, let's take a look at 3.7 permit granting authority, the planning board is only board of appeal as the bylaw maybe as a mate, or if no specific designation, the building commissioner slash zoning enforcement officer. That's the definition of permit granting authority. I have no problem with that. Neither do I. Okay. I think it's the exact language Joel Bard from KP law. Right. Yeah, said to define it as. Let's take a moment. I've looked at this once, but I want to look at it one more time. Managed look at it many, many, many times. I've also read through it as well. Okay. And so neither one of you have any concerns just give me one last moment. Okay, so I'm ready for a motion. I move to declare the proposed revisions to article. Three section 3.325 and article 12 definitions. Oh, after 3.325 should say mixed use buildings and article 12 definitions. Clear consistent and actionable as amended. Second to Angela's. All right, we have a motion has been made and seconded. I'm going to go right to a vote and start with Mandy. Hi, Pat. No, chairs and I. So this is carried three to zero with two members absent as amended. So let me just save that. I'm sharing. I'm going to put that over there. This is going to close. This item is article seven parking and access. Let me find that. The CVS lot rezoning the parking facility overlays. Is that all that's next. Yeah. Yes, it is. Sorry. Let's go there. And just as a refresher, this is, I think the document will cease as bold as additions. I don't know what is strike out, but this is a complete addition to the bylaw. So basically everything is in addition. Right. So we have in front of us. Everyone can see it. I take it. Is it size. You can everyone can read it. Okay. All right. Any concerns or questions people have with this. We go through it. So basically it has a fair amount of text. Said the least. It's probably best for us to go through it section by section quickly. Let's begin with just the headers. So bowl italic text indicates proposed language strike out indicates removal. So basically everything's proposed even though. Not everything is bold and like is what I'm saying. Okay. So the first thing is article two zoning districts is adding a section 2.04 special districts. It's adding to that section, the parking facility district. And then article three section 3.3 to. 3.23 defines. Right. The regulations regarding that facility district. So the numbering is correct. Not that I would know. Okay. Okay. I think that's a good question. Before you keep going, there is one thing that has been interesting and I'd have to look through the whole thing up. If you see the title at 3.323 parking facility district is always PFD. But at 3.231 applicability. It puts it as P F O D. Well, isn't that because it's an overlay. District. Well, I'm just saying for consistency purposes. I don't know whether the overlay needs to be there, but we should wherever it's referred to, it should either have the overlay word in it or it should. Not is what I'm saying for consistency. We should pick one. And. So we could add overlay to the bold PFD parking facility district and that first sentence there. And then. We could add overlay to everything or I think the. We could add overlay to everything. Or we could delete overlay from the applicability section and change everything that says P F O D to just PFD. All right. What. It seems to me it should say overlay. Realize the very first section. Point 204 special districts. PFD parking facility district. The parking facility district is an overlay district. Okay. Here PFD refers just to this specific. Site correct. It's not a group of there. Not a bunch. It defines it as an overlay district on that. Oh, okay. All right. So you could argue that once it's been defined. As an overlay district. You don't need it. There's no reason to have it. And it is at 3.23. And it's only 3.231. And then it's only in 3.231. Under applicability. Why what? Is there any reason, rhyme or reason you can think of Mandy for why would suddenly change at this. I think it was just an oversight. So I would say we would strike this. I'm not, we're not necessarily have to do this. But I'm going to suggest. Striking this. And striking. Yeah, I think that makes the most sense. And so it happens a couple of times. I think instead of if you line it out like that and doing it under track changes would make it more obvious. Yeah. So what are you suggesting rather than lining it out? Just just remove it. Just delete it. Yeah. Delete it is because you're tracking changes. So just delete it. Yeah. So that we can. Right. Overlay. Anyplace else so far. Overlay. Thank you. And then we just have to make sure anytime we see it. The next one, 3.232 needs to be changed. Down the permitted in the PFO D. I just want to read this. I wonder if this is something I should also check. With Chris on just to be sure. They're not going to freak out. I don't see them. Having a problem because in section two, they referred to it specifically as the parking facility district. Right. Right. Okay. And there's no way that. Yeah, there could be. Another PFD. Well, I mean, they even referred to it in 3.23, the title as the PFD, not the PFO D. Okay. All right. Okay. Dimensional standards, the following dimensional standards shall apply and replace section 6.17 and table three in their entirety. Okay. Okay. Standards and conditions. I think. Just punctuation issue here, the permit granting authority shall apply the requirements of sections 3.204 design review principles, principles and standards comma section 7.1 design standards and landscape review principles. Okay. Okay. Okay. That's fine. Comma. That's fine. I'm sorry. Okay. Okay. Okay. All right. All right. The numbering seems fine as far as I can see. We've made only one. Small change. So I'm going to. I'm ready for a motion. I'll make the motion to declare the proposed parking facility district bylaw clear, consistent and actionable as amended. Second is Pat. Thank you. I'm going to go immediately to vote this time. I'll start with Pat. Yes. The chairs and I'm Andy. Hi. Again, this is approved. The vote is three to zero with two members absent. I'm going to save these changes. And I'm going to stop sharing. And I'm going to put that. Off to the side. And the next is, um, Article seven parking and access regulation. Let me find that. This is the one I sent you this morning, just to make it easier to read and understand what changes were actually being proposed. As I explained. So I'm going to go ahead and make sure that. The prior. There's no changes from the prior document. It's just the prior document showed many different. Iterations with deletions of. Prior proposed language that isn't actually in the current bylaw. And so it looked like a lot more was being deleted than actually is type thing. So it was a little hard to understand. Well, let's make sure I have the right one in front of us. So I'm going to share a screen for a moment. We're going to take a look at it and make sure it's the right one. So we can't see what the actual changes are. So we need to stop sharing that. Yeah. And go to where did I put it? It's the question of the month. I could probably pull it up. Well, you sent it to me by. Okay. Hang on for a second. All right. Should be actually, I should have opened it earlier. Did I? Okay. I'll open it again. This is. Yep. I see it. Yeah. Yeah. What you pulled up just now was the version that. If adopted, it would look like in the bylaw, which is not what we need to be looking at probably. I guess it could be, but we should probably be. We're going to look at the one you want. I'm going to put that. There. All right. Bear with me for a second. I'm going to put. Let's see this hopefully will be what we want. Yep. This is what we want. Share screen. All right. So you should have in front of you. The third zoning bylaw, which is. Article seven parking access regulations. And many of these changes were made when. These have been all. I mean, some of these. This is, this is showing the proposed changes in green and the proposed. Changes in red, the strike through the deletions that both the planning board and the CRC voted to recommend. Okay. So this is sort of what it would look like in the. In the motion sheet, because it would be to add X to delete Y. Okay. That's why I said it was sort of the cleaned up version of what the council will see. Okay. Okay. So we're going to look at this. So in this paragraph where it says. Permit granting authority may require the applicant to hold sufficient land in reserve in order to provide additional parking spaces that might be required to be built at a later time. Parenthesis shadow parking slash landscape parking reserve close parentheses. Explain to me what that parentheses is doing. That parentheses is just indicating how. Such reserve might be referred to in a plan or. In an actual site plan review. Permit or a special permit that what, what was just defined is generally referred to as shadow parking or landscape parking reserve. So it's just saying that that's how it would be referred to in a particular plan or on the. Site plan, the actual documents. So the only, you know, whether it would make sense to move that. I mean, it's pretty clear. I think I don't know. Pat. I feel it's pretty clear. It's not. I know you hate parentheses, George. Well, yeah. I like it. George, just because you don't. Thank you. That's excellent. Make sure that gets in a minute. All are. Okay. I think it's, it works. Okay. All kidding aside. So again, this is simply describing things that the permit grant authority may. Require. Also may not. Okay. Okay. There's, there's the second to last paragraph is the shell. Okay. The parking management plan. So there are a few shells and there are. Yeah. Shall require the applicant. Right. Parking will be managed and enforced by the applicant in addition to the amount of parking space. Shall satisfy the provisions. Okay. Good. All right. The rest. Okay. All right. We have here parking space requirements under section. Okay. I checked. The other day. Cause I was looking up here for. They're not up there. They're actually in the other in the actual bylaw. So, right. And those are correct. I believe so. Okay. That's, I'm satisfied with this. Anyone, any concerns, questions, problems. Okay. Then I'm prepared to entertain a motion. I'm on a roll here motion. I moved to declare the proposed revisions to article seven, parking and access regulations, clear, consistent and actionable. Okay. Presented. If we want to present it fine. We've made no changes to this. Most have been made and seconded. I'm going to go immediately to a vote. The chair is an eye, Mandy. Aye. Pat. Aye. All right. I'm going to put that off to the side. The motion carries three zero with two absent. The final item under zoning this morning is. Continuation of. The temporary zoning regarding permitting for certain uses during COVID-19. And this exists. And as we'll see in a moment. All that I have for this is a memo, which includes the bylaw. So I'm going to put that up on the screen. And we're going to take a look at it. Oh, that's the memo. Okay. All right. So the memo is dated October 12, 2021. It's from the town manager to the town council. We have all seen this before. And the reason it's on the screen is because attached to it is the proposed zoning bylaw amendment. Dated 12, 10, 12, 21. And the only change that I see in this document is changing the date from December 31, 2021 to December 31, 2022. Since this already has passed muster with KP law back in 2021. Or 2020 actually, probably. There is no reason. For a keep you law review, I do not think since simply changing the date is not a matter of legal concern. So I do not have anything from KP law on this. But I'm assuming it's not needed. And if it is needed, it can be provided to the council prior to the time it takes votes on this. So since this is the only change, I am prepared. I'm going to go ahead and vote. This article 14 temporary zoning regarding permitting for certain uses during COVID-19 emergency and it's aftermath. To be clear, consistent actionable. Is there a second. Second. That's it. All right. So it's been, I gotta be doing something here. I'm made in seconded and I'm going to go immediately to vote. I'm going to start with Pat. And Mandy. Hi. And the chairs and I again, the vote is three zero with two absent. The motion carries. Now. I don't really look at my emails much before meeting because I'm busy doing other things, believe it or not. But I have here. Because I was looking at Mandy's email. In order to put it up on the screen. I have here an email from Janet McGowan. At time of 1037, 1027 a.m. Yeah, so. I don't really know what to do with it. So, and I'm given the late date that has been given to us. I really don't know what to say. We can look at it together. I think since it is a, I mean, I think we can look at it together. We do have public comment. We can look at it during public comment, though in public comment, we don't actually comment on public comment. It's not usually something that we discuss. We simply note that it's there. And I don't believe that I'm looking to take a look again, whether anyone is present in the public. No, there's no one present in the public. I'm looking for advice from my colleagues as to what to do with this. My sense is that at this point. It can be entered into the record as public comment. I have no problem with that. And I guess I would suggest to the, it's quite lengthy. It goes on for numerous paragraphs. Do you want to look at it? Or what do people want to do with this? If anything. So, you know, I haven't read it. So I just pulled up my email, but the first sentence, I think. The first two sentences that say. Not ready for town council based on language lack of supporting data and consideration of alternative or all substantive matters, not consistency and action ability. Matters in the sense that it's not something within our purview. Right. So this is something that I would suggest I will send an email to the sender later this morning saying thank you for your presentation, but in fact, this should be sent to the town council and should be part of the town council's discussion. Okay. I think that that deals with that. All right. Next item on the agenda is Fincom interview post mortem. And I bring that up only because we have done this in the past. I think it's always useful for us just to think for a moment about how it went. I do obviously, well, I have a thought about it. I don't know if anyone has any thoughts about the interview process itself and how it went. You love it. You hate it. You like it. Yeah. No, I've. No, I didn't like it. I felt. I liked having the people together. And I can see the value of answering the same question. It certainly brought up some differences that were clear. My concern is with a really with a lack of. You know, I think it's a lot of questions that are more individual to people. And I think. Without that, it's not really an interview somehow. And which I didn't think theoretically when we were redesigning it. So that's kind of where I am now. I have a door. Okay. Okay. Now we have a moment to say what we really think about Pat. Oh, she's back. Yeah. No, I just needed to shut my son's visiting. That's nice. And I had a similar reaction, but Mandy any thought, I want to say something in a moment, but I had a similar reaction to Pat. To how that went. And I took a look at the. Actual guidance that we now have adopted. And I again think that the chair. I missed an opportunity to follow the guidance. Because the guidance doesn't say anything about not allowing follow up questions. But the chair in his initial statement. Said there will be no follow up questions. And I think that was a mistake. And since it wasn't in the, it isn't in the guidance and please correct me if I'm wrong, but I read the guidance again. And while it says it must be group interviews and there are six questions, excuse me, there are set questions and even send advance. It does not explicitly state that there cannot be followed questions. It does seem to leave. I think it was deliberate. I think when we did it to leave certain flexibility. And I think the failure of the chair to allow that would say, you know, I'm not saying that there's no follow up questions. I think everyone will be allowed to follow up question. Was unfortunate because I certainly felt what Pat felt was like, you know, there was more that could have been done. But we were just following the script. Mandy, any thoughts on that in terms of either your action to the interview itself. And also to my reading of the guidance, which I take it to allow follow up questions. If the chair and or the committee. If the chair and the committee. I didn't look specifically and that was one of the things I was going to try and pull up as the new guidance. I know we discussed when we were making recommendations on this policy to the council. We had in there that the whole committee could vote to have follow up questions. And then we deleted something. And I forget where we ended up and what sort of our thought as a GOL was when we sent that to the council. On whatever we ended up with, right. So. Yeah. Yeah. I think that's a good question. I don't know how follow up questions. I think. You know, it goes back to the original debate, right? When you have two candidates. And the interviews are not that long. Maybe it's. Okay. Right. As long as you try to. And give each candidate. Potentially equal time or equal amounts of follow up questions. I think one of the concerns was that, you know, which we've seen in GOL before one candidate takes a huge amount of time and another candidate doesn't or, you know, and that might become. Start feeling unfair to a candidate, either the one that has a lot of questions to answer or the one that doesn't, right? Yeah. You know, and so. With two candidates, I think the interviews feel a lot different than when you've got seven or eight or nine. And that makes a difference. So I didn't think that the process was that bad, but, you know, I thought it went fine. But I understand where you guys's concerns are. And if the. If the policy allows for follow up questions at either or, or if the chair believes that that could be a possibility, I wouldn't object to that, but I would request that the whole committee vote on whether to do so. And that would be a question of what kind of answers we need. So, I think we would like to take it as a question of whether that would be the chair's decision and that maybe that vote. Happened once we know how many SOIs there are. So that we know. What kind of interview time we're facing. That makes sense. The last part of what you said, Mandy. I also wonder. You can generalize the follow up question too. So in an instance where there are two. And I think that the follow up question could be given to each of them or something like that. It would take a little bit more on them in the moment. Crafting before you asked your question, but I think that that's possible. So I have on the screen, the current policy, which I don't know if you have any questions. I don't know if you have any. So statement. Yeah, sections eight and nine. But I know we had language at some point and then. Right. So here's what it says prior to holding interviews, the recommending committee shall by majority vote adopt interview questions, which will be asked to all applicants. The committee shall consider the adopted selection guidance and developing interview questions. Committee shall also solicit questions from the town council in advance. Time limits for answering questions may be set prior to the interviews. But I think that we need to comment. We need to have something about it in there. Because the omission can be interpreted that you can't just as easily as you can, I think. Yeah. I mean, I think we need to have something about it in there because the omission can be interpreted that you can't just as easily as you can. I think. Yeah. I mean, I think we as a committee before we forwarded this on to the council had in there that by majority vote, a committee could decide to allow follow up questions and that language was specifically deleted. As we've seen by many KP law memos. KP law would argue then that that meant no. Um, Yet. I agree with George. Even the first paragraph of interviews. Just requires that we distribute the agenda. I agree with George. Even the first paragraph of interviews. Just requires that we distribute the adopted interview questions. Nothing prohibits. Adding questions. Right. There's no. Distribute the ones that you've already decided to ask. Um, So I would think the plain intent of this is, um, Um, I think it does not prohibit or exclude. Follow up questions. What it's mandates is that there be a set of questions that they adopted in advance. But it doesn't prohibit. And given all the things that council, I mean, I'm saying against this, Pat, maybe it does make sense for us. No, I'm thinking, no, let's talk it out. I just, it helps me to just talk it out briefly. Um, I think it would be better for council to, uh, Uh, revise section nine or maybe it would be better in section eight. That, um, Or it could have a final sense of nothing in this. Um, paragraph or nothing in this policy prohibits the, uh, Uh, Uh, Uh, Prohibits asking follow up questions. Provided, uh, the committee, um, Approves or votes approval. You could do that. Um, I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. Um, I think that's a good instance in this case that went, we just had, um, Uh, in retrospect, I think I might have thought, you know, Uh, I'm just going to allow fault. I'm going to say at the beginning of the meeting, We're going to ask each of these questions, but for each question, you may ask a follow up. Of course the problem is, and that's, you know, Well, the follow up would only be allowed to the person asking the question. Um, And then that may not be fair in other words. So Pat's asking a question. It's answered by all the people present three, whatever how many it was. And then Pat has a follow up. She wants to ask. Um, would be one way of reading that. The other would be anyone may ask a follow up, uh, on the committee. Um, and that could end up being, uh, you know, five questions. Right. So that's, you know, I don't know. I was going to let you go, Pat. I feel like, uh, That anyone should be asked to fall. Kent should be able to ask a follow up question. Because I feel like everybody gets, has a different response or, or a different perspective. And I'm asking the question. I don't have that perspective and I don't, the question gets bypassed, but it's an important question. So, so what I was going to say is I'm not sure we're ready to propose. Revisions per se. As we work on a transition memo, we could specifically identify these two sections as. As potential for. A revisions that would add some mechanism for. The allowance of follow up questions. And, you know, and I say that because. I have a different. Potential way of doing it than what's just been mentioned. You know, I have to think about after all the questions, because no one gets to pick which question they ask, right? That's just sort of randomized. So maybe after all the questions are asked, each counselor is offered an opportunity to ask one follow up question that will be the same to all counselors. You know, so I think there's a lot of different ways we could structure this. But that needs a lot more consideration, I think. And so I would. I would say that might be best for incoming. Counselors to discuss. Whoever ends up on GOL. As a good, almost entry into what does this process look like to, right? And, and thinking about all of that. Process to, so I would add it to the sort of continuing. Carry over items. Okay. You're thinking of a transition memo. Which by the way, is that some help me here? Is that submitted to the council? Or is that just something I create? And then where does it get sent or put? Is it something that council gets to read? Is it something that just is put in some. I think in the council packet to talk about. To the new council. So the new council way to be in some packet. I think it's in the old council's packet too. I think it's in this packet. I think it's in the old council's packet. So I think that's a good email from mid October. I'm sure she'd send it to you again. She's intending on discussing transition memos. At. One of the council meetings in December. So I guess what I'm asking is what should go into it. Does it describe what she wants in the transition memo? Email did. Yeah. Okay. So I need to find her transition. Hopefully many of the things that I've been working on and we'll look at briefly are part of what she has in mind, but I don't know what she wants in the future. I don't know what she wants in the future. I don't know what she wants in the future. Maybe not. So. I need to look at that again. Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead. I was going to say she described. A lot of the sort of basics of what needs to be in there, not what I know you and I as chairs are actually thinking would be really helpful to future chairs, which is different than future committees. Right. And so she talked about what essentially. She talked about what needs to be in there. And what needs to be in there. And what needs to be on what's moving on. And so that's why I say, I think this issue might be something that would be. Good to put in that as even though it hasn't been referred. No, exactly. This is something. I don't identify that could use some conversation. Okay. Okay. Good. Good. All right. Well, I will look at that memo, but that, that makes sense. And then what you and I have been doing as chairs. This is somewhat different. Important, but not, not really that. So what I'm hearing is that in that memo. I think it's important to make sure that we're not wrong. That what we're recommending is a review of sections eight and nine. Of the newly adopted town council policy. On recommendations to the council. From multi-member bodies. Regarding the question of whether there should be follow up questions or not. Yeah. And how that would be implemented. Okay. All right. George, I just want to mention there's one person in the chat. Okay. Sharon. Okay. Sharon. Sharon. All right. All right. So anything else about the post-mortem, I bet what Pat picked on is exactly what I had the feeling that somehow this could have been much better, much more. And still have met the letter of the law. But because I chose not to allow fellow questions, it was somewhat stilted and still, you know, I think it did what we needed to do. I would add one other thing. And this is, this comes from a concerned Darcy had, but I know. CRC has struggled with this issue, which is. We declare the pool sufficient to proceed to statements of interest. When we have enough in theory applicants, right? Maybe there's a consideration and I've had to do it in CRC. And we had that conversation, but I don't know whether. Whether that should be put into the. Policy. When SOIs are received. Is there another determination of sufficiency? Right. I know as chair in a previous version of a policy before we adopted the council policy. I received SOIs and then I said, oh, we might not have sufficient pool anymore. So I brought up that issue with the CRC and ask, essentially ask them to redeclar whether it's sufficient or not. And whether we should go back and delay the process and all of that. And so maybe some sort of additional language into whatever section it is about. The possibility of needing a second review of sufficiency. And I would argue, and this is why maybe the next council needs to take it up. Not necessarily. If we thought there were say eight applicants for two spots and only seven submitted an SOI, right? But if we thought there were eight applicants for five spots and suddenly we only have three SOIs. You know, like, but, but again, maybe talking about adding in some language somewhere about. Re-evaluating the sufficiency. So I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. Prior to going through with interviews. If X, Y or Z happens. No, in our case, it was only two. So it's kind of like this. Right. Right. Right. And, but you can imagine a case where there's only one. And. Yeah. Or, and obviously if there were none. Which I think has been an issue for, for you with ZBA. Or potentially it could have been with us. In the end, nobody submitted an SOI. And Darcy's concern was, well, the SOI is an impediment. I'm not sure I agree with that, but I think she makes a good point that. You know, it is something that has to be done. And if a candidate fails to do it, they're no longer a candidate. Right. And so what, so you're, what you're suggesting. Is that in this transition document. The second item would be to describe that issue. And to suggest that they give some thought to perhaps a second. Vote. Or second review. A second look at sufficiency of the pool. Certain circumstances or something. Yeah. Or even. Even potentially when declaring the pool sufficient the first time. Considering what would cause the pool to become insufficient. Right. To then pause the process. But, but I think there's a validity in, you know. At this point, basically what you have to do is trust the chair to say. I don't think this is sufficient given the openings. And so I'm going to tell the council, the committee. We need to relook at this. We need to make a decision and proactively do that versus right now, once it's declared sufficient, a chair can say, well, I'm just following the process. And so we might have three openings. We got one. And so we're going to do that. And so that's why we're going to interviews. Right. You know, like that the policy as it's written now, that could happen. And maybe we need to write into a policy, some sort of break point. So that that potentially doesn't happen where we're at interviews. And three quarters of the committee are saying, why are we here? We have one interview for. Five spots. Let me argue the other side for a second. I don't know why. And you have the interview. And the committee then deliberates and the deliberation could be. That we're just not satisfied with this candidate or we decide that. I mean, you could have the interview and go, you know, this person's fine. Okay. You could have the interview and say, you know, this is just not sufficient. We're going to put this on. We're not going to act. We're going to, you know, we've done the interview with this applicant. And let's say after a week or two, I mean, the problem we've been having is that, you know, People don't flock. They don't, they don't submit. Application. And given the particular positions we're dealing with, ZBA planning board and Fincom. These are, you know, a fairly demanding of time and energy, not to say that there aren't other bodies that have that, but these are particularly demanding and be with Fincom. There are certain, you know, expectations. Committee could choose to, I mean, we do expect that the candidate have some interest and or familiarity with financial matters. I think the guidance is fairly clear that it just can't be, you know, for instance, I would not be a good candidate for Fincom because I have absolutely no background in financial matters. So anyway, it's, what if you let this policy stay as it is, and the committee goes ahead with just one candidate because that's the only person that submitted SOIs, then it's up to the committee to decide what they want to do. And they could go ahead with that candidate. They could say, we're just not satisfied and we want to put, you know, we want to go back and have more. Right. Rather than trying to come up with a policy that sets, you know, is it three? Is it two? Is it one? Is it five? You know, what do you think? I mean, that's the kind of kind of argument, which is just let it be. And if that happens, which could have happened to us fairly recently, it would then be on us as a committee to decide what we want to do at the, after the interview was done. I feel like that decision needs to be made before the interview. If there's one candidate or there's two, it's not enough. Then not to contact them and say, we're going to reach out. You're wonderful candidates, but we need to reach out because we feel like the pool is not sufficient to interview them. And then say that, I think. I think that's really awkward. And so, yeah. It's awkward, but yeah, okay. My recommendation is. Things can be awkward. And so some guidance potentially in the policy is too. When that consideration might need to be revisited. And I'm just talking about even timing, not necessarily what George is referring to is numbers, just, you know, somewhere in, I don't know where the statement of interest one is, whether that's six or seven, but somewhere in that section potentially adding a thing that says after the deadline for statements of interest. And here's where someone needs to talk about language, right? Because that becomes very important. The chair or the committee shall reevaluate some sufficiency of the pool to ensure that it is still sufficient to continue to interviews or something like that. You know, and so again, for the carryover memo, maybe some. Some other recommendation to consider. A second. Sufficiency determination. If. And if so, when that happens. Okay. That's what I'm hearing that that is something that I think both of you would like put into the memo. And I can do that. But I think the, the kind of argument is just leave it as it is and let the committee decide on a case by case basis, what it wants to do. But what I'm hearing is at least from the two of you, that's that you would prefer at least that they, this be noted. And that whoever takes on GOL next. May or may not choose to revisit it. And that's up to them. We're not going to. We're not going to do that. We're not going to do that. We're not going to do that. And that's basically what I'm hearing. And I've certainly endorsed this. Given all that we have to do and given the, the timing. We're not going to try to revisit this and make a recommendation to council. But in the transition memo. We will note this. And then it's up to them to do what they want. Okay. All right. Thank you. The next item on the agenda is the promised committee report. It's not ready for prime time. I had much more fun doing other things, which we'll look at in just a moment. And when I started doing it. My heart sank, but I, that's too bad for me, right? So I will continue to work on it. It's, it's in my court. I will be. Yeah, go ahead. Continue. And then I have a question. I thought you were pausing. I'm pausing only because. Yeah. I'm just imagining this task in front of me, but. And I've managed to find other ways to do other things, which were much more interesting and much easier to do. Anyway, Mandy, go ahead. So question. Many of those bylaws or the recommendations from the. GOL are not to make modifications to the bylaws. It's to either leave them as is or send to a committee or. You know, basically get the manager to send it to X, Y. But I know there's at least one bylaw where the recommendation was to rescind the bylaw. Yes. And I don't know how many of those there are. I know it was at least one. It might only be one. I'm not sure. And so I guess my question is. I think it would be wise if we as a council try and take that action. Yes. And so that would mean the bylaw first reading. Assuming there are no rights to postpone would need to be probably the sixth of December. Looking at council meetings and it would at least have to be posted on the council on the bulletin board by December 6th, that proposed rescission. And so as chair, I guess, as a committee member, I would ask that you touch base with Lynn for scheduling purposes for the second reading. And I think that would be a good idea. And I think that to the December 6th meeting for our first reading, the December 20th meeting or whatever for the second reading and vote that particular rescission. And if there's other bylaws where we actually have recommendations to do stuff. That we get that. Other than just referral. Yeah. Because a referral, I believe that could simply be done at one meeting, whatever the last meeting, the last meeting where you have simply referring. That's right. Yeah. So I think one of the challenges has been going through the multi, multi documents. You gave me one, which was great. There's a memo that we also have. Anyway. I understand that completely. But you know, I guess what I'm trying to say is without. Figure out which ones have actual council action that require two readings and posting on bulletin boards and all this other things, because they're bylaw. Changes. Right. Focus on them, even if it's two separate reports. Yeah. I think we should at least talk to Lynn about scheduling of that because we're running out of time to have those votes by the end of this council. And I, I feel like we should at least attempt to finish those actions. I agree with you 100%. All right. So I'm going to stop sharing that. And. So I'm going to put you away. I'm going to take a look at. This document. I'm going to put it up on the screen. And then we may take a quick little gander at our GOL. SharePoint site. Let's see here. So. Currently, you can all see that I hope currently. On our, this is our official town website, not the GOL SharePoint. So our public facing. Face. Are these seven documents, along with some other things that Athena has very. Capably and able to put on our site. And I just want us to think about the public face. So I think the charge should be there. Obviously the meeting schedule will be new. Charge template. I guess should stay there. Maybe that also should be on SharePoint. Or maybe it is, and I just need to find it. I'm going through our SharePoint as well. I'm going to talk with you for a few minutes about that. And then hopefully we'll be able to call the meeting to a close, but I just wanted to go through this with you. Cause right now this is our public face. And so. I was suggesting. And again, you may want to weigh in on this at some point in the next weeks, but of, so this has been changed. Okay. So Athena went and took away the, our policy, which is no longer relevant and replaced it with the official town council policy. So that has been done. Okay. What I was going to recommend. Is that. We get rid of six. Which is a revised guidelines review. Clear consistent actual and replace it with four, one, two, three, four. We're going to go to the last man to look at briefly. I just want to make sure that I'm not, we could just leave it as is. And any poor soul who wants to, wants to wait through it can go ahead. But this, it seems duplicative. And you, I think it's important that it be there. I think that was really an important thing for us to do so that when even members of the council. And I think that's really important. And I think that's what we mean by clear consistent actual and what you all does. We send them there. But right now we have two documents that seem to me to be somewhat overlapping and. I don't know if anyone's had, I assume you probably haven't had a chance to look at them. But before I just go ahead and deep six. Six. And replace it with four. I would value any of us. Taking a look and say, wait a minute. No, no, no, you need both. Okay. Six is actually better than four. That's my only concern. So that's the last thing I'm going to do. I'm not going to do it in the next week or so, but eventually if I don't hear from anybody. I'm going to get rid of six. And, and just leave four. Okay. And that's our public face. If there's anything you think also should be there that's missing. If there's anything there that. If there's anything that's missing. If there's anything that's missing. If there's anything that's missing. If there's anything that's missing. Right. But I think at this point we're pretty good. So I just wanted to look you to that. Mandy, any thoughts? What's on this. And then I actually want to. I guess it's similar things transition to new council, another carryover measure that I just remembered. But on this one, I actually looked at four and I looked at six and much of six is in four word for word. You know, and so they are very. They are very different. They are very different. Because it actually gave examples of. Potential things. So I thought that was fantastic. One thing I don't like about four is the title. Title FAQ final. It tells, tells people nothing. You know, and so I think we need to revise the title to something like. You know, something like that. Or review of measures or something that gives them just like the one number five gives people an idea of exactly what it's. And then because I think we formally adopt, I don't know whether we formally adopted both. Or one of them, I assume we adopted both, you know. Since the wording is nearly the same, I think. We're moving number six from the. Yeah. I think that website is fine. I don't think we necessarily need any other votes, but I would definitely change the title of number four. And suggestion would be something like. Guidelines for what do you think? Could you just use it right or. FAQ on. Review of measures, clarity, consistency and actual ability. It's a long thing, right? Yeah, I agree with you. I agree with you. Pat, I sounds like you have no trouble with this. Let's get rid of six and just retitle four. And right now the suggestion is guidelines or FAQ on review of measures or something. Guideline. On. Review of measures. Clarity. See. I agree with you. Pat, I sounds like you have no trouble with this. Let's get real. I'm not having a problem with six and just retitle four. And right now the suggestion is guidelines on review of measures for clarity, consistency and actual ability. The fact is an FAQ really doesn't matter if that's just a way, but what's important is that. Somebody says, what do these guys mean. By clarity. And this would tell them go here and hopefully that will tell you. And this, this tells you what the differences are between the four different measures. And that's what we're talking about. And that's what we're talking about. Which I think, right. And good. All right. So I will do that. So the other thing I remembered for carryover is when we were dealing with the. Policy to make recommendations for the council, there was a whole appendix part of that policy that we basically said we shouldn't touch until the council's adopted the policy. And that appendix actually should be a different document, but it should be a different document. And we said, I would expect if you're. Applying for. A appointment to these multiple member bodies. It was sort of that what to expect documents similar to these FAQs for the public. And we said we'd come back as GOL after the. Actual recommendation. Policy. And then we said, we didn't want to spend time doing the FAQ. If things were going to change. And so the new council could probably do the FAQ, which is sort of the, from the resident side, what's this process look like. And I've got to dig that up. I know exactly what you're referring to. What I'm not clear on is where the heck I put it. Yeah. Because we separated it out. Right. And where do you think that might go? It could go. I think it goes in the same part where we're talking about these, just that policy. Carry over of measure, carry over of items. The next GOL can deal with. So it's actually in that transition memo. Yeah. And it could be attached to that, or it could just be referred to, but it needs to be somewhere so they can find it. I would. Yeah. I'm not sure. You have one that's out of date. Just so people can see what we're talking about. All right, I will. So I need to find. That. Okay. I know exactly, but something I think Evan did. And he did. Yeah. And it got, it got detached for good reason. And I need to find out where it went. Okay. Okay. Okay. Yeah. To transition memo. Okay. All right. So that's something to be added. So that's three items for the transition memo and finding that document find, find this. I will give this to staff. And I'll get on it right away. But there's no public that was a joke. All right. Let's stop sharing that. Is that okay? With that. I'm going to. Put you aside there. All right. Next. What do I have here? Discussion of JOL website and committee documents. That's really what we've been doing, actually. The only other thing. And you may want to do this. If I can actually share this with you. Because I'm really proud of it. I'm just showing off. Where what I find it is the question. Hang on for a second. Open up to you. I was just here. Okay. Except maybe hard to read. Okay. Yes. Good. I'm going to show this with your second ask your advice and then I'll stop showing off. There we go. Okay. So I really do need your advice on this. So this, if you, it's a little confusing. Someone who understands this. My computer better than I do. Could make this look better. But this is our SharePoint site. Okay. And so when we, when the new JOL starts up in January. I wanted this to have in it. Everything they would need. That we could think of. We could think of getting rid of certain things that I think are no longer necessary. And since this has been the work of Mandy, a great deal of workers. She's put into it. I didn't want to start throwing things out. Without her. Okay. My feeling is that. So here's the stuff that I have put in. This is again, thanks to me. Click on it. I'm sorry. Absolutely. No, thank you. Just just pointing it out. So. Should have been doing this probably all along, but there's a place now where you can find all the CAF. There is a, this I can show you, but this again is model on what Mandy was doing for CRC. Here's a set of all sample documents. Okay. Email documents and thin. All stuff related to Fincom. Okay. And what I would suggest, if it's possible is for all of you to take a look at some of these documents and look at it over and see if anything's missing. See, if you think, well, wait a second, what about X? What about Y? Because I just want to make it as useful as possible. Obviously meeting package and agendas. That's where hopefully some of you occasionally do go rather than to, to our official website that people can do either. I think, right. I prefer to use SharePoint, but whatever, it's there meeting package and agendas. We've been doing that all along. This I'd like to get rid of. Yeah. Okay. But I want to make, and I'd like to get rid of draft minutes and committee reports that actually I could. Committee reports. Okay. So what I might do is I go back and I haven't been putting them in here, but I wouldn't take me that long. And it's the kind of tasks that I like because it's, you know, actually you can accomplish it. Doesn't require a great deal of thought. Just, I could just put as many as I can find in there. Approved minutes. I do do. But draft minutes. I don't. So. Do you, I mean, it's fine with me if it's fine. It's fine if it's gone. Okay, fine. So I take those two out. I take out approved adopted policies and procedures. Because if you open it and look at it. It's, it's, you know, it might even be out of date. Yeah, it is. So I would just take it out of somebody wants, I mean, whoever the next chair is can do whatever the heck they want. But I was going to try and make it simpler. So. So that's what I was going to do. You're okay on that. And before I start throwing things out. So I've added the finance committee. This again is based on what Mandy's been doing. And so I did create an Excel spreadsheet that lists everybody that's applied following your model. So again, people can look at it. Pat particularly just glance at it and say, oh, that's nice. That's nice. That's useless. Why are you doing this? Well chair duties. I have a draft. That's a draft. I always appreciate input on that. I could send it to you individually if you want. It's kind of wordy. I'm afraid. I thought you did send it. I don't know if I did. I think it's in the packet. Yeah, it's in the packet. Yes. Yeah, exactly. So good. I can go back then. Let me see if I can do that without creating chaos. Okay. Okay, good. I did it right. All right. So our charges here, jail chair duties is here. My, this is my personal favorite. I'm so proud of this. Very helpful. I'm sure it is actually, and you can actually click on a link that takes you to the most recent version of the property. Wow. It's just awesome. It's awesome. Yeah, I'm the person who believes there is no ego town council policy. Oh, this is the official policy. That's the official policy on. If you think of anything that you think would be useful to be on this for a future GOL that is not on it right now. Just send me an email or just tell me right now. Or if you have time sounds like some of you already done it. Look it over. Especially the new stuff and just say, yeah, that's, that's okay. Or wait a minute. It's right. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Because otherwise this is what we're going to do. I'm going to take out voted documents. I'm going to take out. Draft minutes. And. Adopted policies. The only thing that I can say is. For. Agenda. For our meetings. The agenda jackets. And this, I don't think you need to do necessarily, but maybe Athena or. Yeah. Do it like the council does where you have the current meeting. And then everything else is in a, in a separate folder. Because I hate going through that list. I know it's down at the bottom. You know, blah, blah, blah. Okay. So here's. Yeah. That's minor and it's not important. Simple practical question that has a simple answer to which I can, I don't feel like it's, I can bother Athena with this kind of crap, but I just can't figure out. How to. I mean, I. Move. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Right. So somewhere in here, if you page all the way up. All the way up. Yeah. There's, there's see that see all that you see. Hang on for a second. No, no, no. Just when you click on that, then you have the ability to move stuff between. Oh my God. Okay. Good. Thank you. That's very helpful. I will do that. No, I mean, how am I supposed to know that? I didn't know that. But that is, then you will have the ability to like drag and drop. This is a Microsoft product. Is this a Microsoft product? Yeah, it must be. It must be. They are such. So once you click the see all, then you have the ability. Thank you. Thank you. See, I think they could have told me that in heartbeat, but. There's a reason. We allow Mandy to be on this committee. I don't know. I don't know. Many reasons, but anyway, Athena, the reason I didn't ask you is because I, it's just not fear to ask you. So anyway, good. I will do that. And I will try to pursue your thought, Pat, is you like everything, all previous meetings. In a separate packet. But yeah, it's just much easier. Okay. I'll see if I can do that for the last meeting or two. Because then it's a model that the next GOL chair can follow. But it's so easy when I go on the council website. Go right to the meetings that I need. Oh, I'm looking forward to this. Go to see you. I love to put the stuff in order. Okay. Andy, what else can we come up with? There's got to be something else. That's your son. All I can say is George, you know, I know how much work this takes to get this already. So thank you for doing it for GOL. It's my pleasure. He's going to take you out for drinks. I don't think as a fellow chair, I don't know how many people realize how much work getting all of this together. Or the transition. The public president today will certainly they will, they will understand. Probably present today, which is still. No, I think. She's still here. Yeah. We should ask for public comment. I think this is the point in the meeting where we. Look to see if the public is present. For some reason my screen isn't showing it at all. There is a raised hand. All right. There's a raised hand. And I see the. Yeah. Oh, there we go. There's a raised hand. And so I'm going to draw the public in. This public is named Sharon. Sherry. So if you would simply. State your name and your address. Hi, everybody. This is Sharon. Sherry. The director of the Jones library here in Amherst. I just wanted to say, Hey, I stuck it out this long. You guys are adorable. I just got to say, you guys are adorable. And I do appreciate how difficult it is. Everything that you guys are doing. Absolutely. And I have enjoyed listening to you. Just do all of this work very collaboratively and I think that's awesome. I originally wanted to join in, in the beginning of your meeting, and then I got sidetracked. And so. So I missed the actual topic that I was interested. Yes. I wanted to say to you, even though this is public comment is that because you were there, our banter. Was reduced and subdued. We actually cleaned up our act. Because we actually have public presence. Well, I am clapping for you right now. I totally appreciate that as well. Yeah. The item that you had concerned about, I mean, be happy. Oh, concern is too strong of a word. No, I was just interested in the, it was the reason for that. The parking overlay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, we just, we passed that along. So that does all four zoning items. We're reviewed by us. And we only look at clarity, consistency and accessibility, which we'd love to talk to you about a great length. If you have more time. We only look at that. We do not discuss the substance of issues. So whether she's here. I'll just say CRC recommended the council. Adopt it by a four to one vote last night. That is spectacular. They do deal with substantive matters. We were just the across the, across the T's and dot the I's committee. And so what's so great about these subcommittees is I actually, just as a listener, I get to. I get to. We as residents get to know you all as counselors more. Because more of your, you know, individual personalities come out. And, and so I think that's great. I love your sense of humor, George. And I got to say, Mandy, the way. Mandy Joe, the way you run a meeting is. Exceptional. So. I appreciate something about me. I'm sorry. I haven't. I haven't. I haven't seen you run a meeting yet. So I'm sorry. Okay. There we go. Next council. It could be. I appreciate you all. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Bye. Okay. This is just a public announcement for those who may be doing this now or later. We did not pay Sharon Sherry to come today and make those comments. Just letting you know that was okay. And also you can see what a sense of humor does you out in the real political world. Nothing. But thank you very much. So that's public comment. Thank you so much. Thank you. Bye. Okay. This is just a public announcement for those who may be doing this now or later. We did not pay Sharon Sherry to come today and make those comments. Just letting you know that was. So that's public comment. We have two sets of minutes that I would really like to move along. We have the October 20th and November three 2021 minutes. The chair has looked at them carefully. And as usual, they've been done with the usual level of skill and expertise. I have no changes to make this. Anyone have any changes they wish to make to either October 20th or November three. Okay. I'm not seeing no hands raised. I'm going to make the motion to approve the October 20th and November three 2021 minutes as presented. Is there a second? Are we fighting over it? I need a second. I'll second. Thank you. Any further discussion. Other than again, gratitude to Emily and to Athena for all that they do for us behind the scenes. I'm going to take a minute to approve the vote. I'll take a minute to approve the vote to start this time with Pat. And Mandy. And the chair is an eye that visa minutes are approved. The vote is three to zero with two absent. I future agenda items. Just briefly. How are we doing on time? Why are we doing okay? Other than the things I need to do related to this, I'm going to take a minute to approve the vote. Thank you. Thank you for your consideration. What do people see. Coming. In the, obviously there's a transition memo that I need to be working on. There is the report I need to be working on. I always like to share this with people in advance, but often I'm doing it at the last minute. So it's not fair, but I will do my best to get it to you. In advance. If you wish to look at it. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We don't have the reorganization at all, right? That's TSO with a little bit. Yeah. The council didn't seem to think this committee needed to do it all with it. Right. Yeah. It was one to 12. Yeah. On that one. So yeah. Yeah, we will have the temporary moratorium coming. I believe. Carry over to next term. Yeah. I'll be sending an email to Pat, you and Linda's sponsors today about CRC schedule for the hearing. Right. So we won't be saying that. We won't be seeing it till next term, but I guess that should probably be on the carry over as a reminder that. Yes, please. GOL will need to look at it and that might be a very extensive, but actually this one may, not for the temporary moratorium moratorium may or may not be extensive. But it will not be legal. It's been written by KP law, blah, blah, blah, blah. The carry over will be there. So it's technically a carry over referral. So clarify here for a moment. I'm sorry. The, the temporary bylaw that's been proposed that was referred. Temporary moratorium. Moratorium is always referred to CRC and planning board for hearing, but then it goes to GOL for review of clarity, and then it goes back to the GOL. So it's technically an outstanding referral at GOL. On the carry over items. Referral. All right. Okay. Are there any. December or January proclamations. I'm thinking January. Do we do an MLK proclamation? Do we do anything in late January such that we should just, we should deal with them in December because of the reorganization of the council might not be able to get to it till January. Very good. So proclamations. We do have a human rights day in December. I think it's the United, it's the United Nations. Isn't that in December? Yeah, the, the, the, the, yeah, the declaration of. Right. Always happens from the human rights commission generally. Right. So, um, so December. And January proclamations calendar, but December January proclamations. We should probably deal with on December 1st. Yeah. I will not be in the meeting on December 1st. So you will be absent. Yeah. Okay. I'll be at a conference. All right. So we may have a quorum issue. I think I will reach out to the other two members and hopefully one of them at least will tell us that they will be there. Um, because we really can't. Yeah. If you want to move the day or the meeting. Yeah. If we have a quorum issue, maybe we can move it. I guess, well, let me check. I think I know that's problematic. But I'd be willing to. All right. Maybe we could meet. I mean, Darcy was ill. I mean, so hopefully that was, you know, she'll be fine for December 1. But we're, we're obviously a little short-handed. Yeah. If you weren't important, I would. I hear you. No. All right. So you will be absent December 1. I will look into quorum on that. Definitely December January proclamations need to be addressed. And then just thinking about the transition memo listing out, even though you have that fantastic. Um, schedule listing out for that transition memo, assuming that that's the basic thing. The new counselors on GOL will read listing out the February proclamations and resolutions so that they have an idea. Of what they need to put on their first agenda. I guess as a chair, I'm thinking potentially putting in a transition memo, what the first or for me, it might be the second agenda looks like like. It might be the second agenda. It might be the second agenda. It might be the second recommended agenda with a list of items that might need to be those proclamations. Okay. I'm going to hunt up. Um, is transition memo in the title of what Lynn sent us. I have no idea. Yeah. I mean, look, because I still have it in my inbox. Yeah. I'm behind. Um, I can see I'm really behind. Carry over measures. Okay. The original one came. October 15th. Yeah. Carry over measures. That's all I need. And if I have any problem, I'll reach out to you, but I need to get that today and start working on. So carry over measures. I will look at that. Anything else people can think of. So yes, that's excellent proclamations coming up. Transition memo. For December, January. Um, okay. Okay. All right. That's, oh, one last thing. I'm sorry. Um, there's still a lot of confusion in my mind about what the role of GOL is in terms of the, uh, goal setting for the town manager. And the, um, Oh, that was referred to us. I know. So that should be on December 1st meeting. Yeah. And I'm not sure what, I'm not sure what we're doing with it. Um, I have no idea. Um, I mean, I guess the first deal with that today. Uh, I don't know. I mean, the chair is completely clueless again. Um, Oh, it's really not anything that. I am happy to draft a revised version of the goals that basically updates things that need updated in that, but doesn't change most of the substance, right? You know, there's, for example, one of the goals has. You know, is to assist the town council in drafting and adopting a comprehensive housing policy. And there's things like, you know, like updating things instead of adopting implement, you know, it. I'm happy to draft a version of that. I don't know when that was supposed to be back at the council. Probably as soon as possible. Should be, should be probably. Probably should. Um, That might be on the 22nd agenda. Um, So what needs to be done is that document needs to be at least cleaned up in terms of what's already been attended to. And then the next step would be, is there anything we counselors, not just GOL, but we counselors want to add. Now that could still, that could be in the first reading of it or the first presentation of the GOL revised. GOL's document that would then prompt our colleagues to think, oh, what about this? What about that? So maybe that's the way to go rather than me sending out a last minute email saying, or anything you want to put in this. The real issue is just as you suggested, Mandy, getting it cleaned up for presentation to the council at Monday's council meeting. And so again, touch base with Lynn on that. And then we'll take a crack at it. And then we'll compare notes and. Yeah, I'll take a crack and send it to you, George. And then you can do what you want with it. Before you send it to Lynn, if that's okay with Pat. I just know I already have a lot of notes about, oh, that needs updated. Oh, that needs changed. You know, in terms of just updates. So I just have to turn that into a track changes document. Thank you. That would be great. So say that to me. I will reach out to Lynn and hopefully get that on the agenda. For Monday. And I will also include that in the report. Because you're right. Absolutely. That's something that should have been on the agenda for today. So we'll consider that last 48 hours. Due to faulty memory of the chair. Okay. Anything else people can think of. Alrighty. So we've had public comment. The shame we don't have public comment. Like that every two weeks. I think this job even more pleasant than it already is. So thank you both very much. Thank you, George. For all your work. Yeah. Really. All right. Take care. See you. Adjournment. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye. Bye. Bye guys. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye. Bye-bye.