 So welcome. So this is October 12 meeting of the district advisory board percent of chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 this meeting would be conducted via remote means members of the public who wish to access the meeting. My do so in the following manner. We assume under webinar ID 82414483355 no in person attends as some members of the public will be permitted and public participation in any public hearing conducted during this meeting shall be by remote means only. So we have one attendee that has been here so for the first item is for public comment. And I want to honor our attendee if interesting and giving a public condom, please raise your hand. Yes, Mike, can you promote. Yes, I can. So just you are here. Yeah, feel free to unmute yourself Jessica. I did. Oh, there you go. We can hear you. Thanks for sticking. Oh, you're welcome. I'm glad I did. I just I just want to say, I have two comments actually one is on the most recent map that I saw it. I live in district one, and I would like if at all possible for all of North Amherst center village to be in precinct one, so that there is no visual indication for the future that it's okay to divide up the village center. The recent map that I saw had the block of Harris Fisher, North Pleasant and Pine Street added to precinct three taken out of precinct one, and that's most of the owner occupied housing in the North Amherst village center. And I think that it's more appropriate to put it back in. Just, I know that people down in the Berkshire Terrace, Old Town Road area would love to be in precinct three, because they vote right across the street so if you're looking for people to switch out of precinct one, even up the numbers then that would be a place. My second comment is that I hope that in 10 years, we can get away from using a base map that divides, or that counts up people by drawing lines down the center of their streets. I find that very unfortunate because it means that people who you consider to be neighbors are not treated as your neighbor. I think that if people live on one side of the street, the people they are the opposite side of the street should be in the same interest group. So I'm hopeful that, and I just want to get this in there that I request in the future that the base map divide up by streets and not by sides of streets. That's all. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, I see we're on. We are recording Sue and we just had a public comment by Jessica so Jessica I just want to mention that we, we the town have no control over being able to draw district boundaries down the middle of streets we have to follow very strict rules about what we can use as a boundary, and they don't have to be features that are visible, or natural features like a river, or, and they can't be things like property lines. So we couldn't like draw the, the boundary as you know, parcel boundaries or something like that, because parcel boundaries don't change all the time. Sure, roads, and there aren't enough rivers and streams and Amherst to kind of drive, divide things that way. So streets are kind of the streets railroads, or those big power line cuts, which there's only one or two of those in town are really the only things that we can follow in town and have a control over that. But couldn't you just using the example of the neighborhood that I just mentioned, wouldn't you say all of Harris Street is in precinct one and pine street is all in precinct three or something like that. So, no partially that so I'm going to answer to your comment also that's why partially we included the corner into precinct three, because, for example, Harris Street was one side of the road was Oh, I know. And then one in prison one. And we felt that I think the whole of North Amherst is in one district precincts. At this moment are the identity of precincts are they don't serve any purpose except for where people vote, but the identity goes more for by districts, because all the ones that the the lectures are by district not by prison in town meeting yes it was by prison, but now is by district. And in North Amherst with even included the two village centers that are you know summers in the same district so the Cushman and and North Amherst Village Center is all in the same district. I saw that and I appreciate I appreciate that it just visually the precinct map doesn't matter until it matters. When we were in precincts before town council, you didn't think about, you know precincts becoming districts, and now they have become districts, you know, adding together and so it matters going to understand what we set up as acceptable or not. And I'm just, I'm just putting it into the public record that not dividing up village centers is a bet is a good idea. So, thank you. Thanks. Um, so back into the attendees. Yes. So, in I think we're going to have to change the order of the of the agenda. I don't know. If there's any announcement that we should this urgent that we should look into if not I would like to go into edit the report and approve the report. Tracy, you have any comment about that. So my suggestion would be for switching the order of the agenda would be to go to edit the report to approve the report. Whether there are changes to look to see if we have to make any change in the map. Well first I think we should have the map. Yes Tracy. No, I was going to say, I mean, I feel like if, if we review, I don't know if he wants to send around like the latest version, but it seemed with the report that it was in pretty strong shape already. Yeah. So, you know, if we basically, I mean, we're not changing our recommendations, you know, there was only one substantive area where I might suggest we change a little with the report. But I think because I think it would be great to show some of the maps that the great maps that Mike has made in the report as appendices. So perhaps we could focus on that and just make sure that we all agree on what maps will be in the report. And if we do have to tweak any of the boundaries just to make that all clear now so that if we need to update any of the numbers in the report or the presentation or anything we can just do that. Okay. But it seems like most of the edits to the report would be pretty minor. Yeah, I think that's why one of the major issues is the numbers. Okay, so which map do you have in mind first, the ones that they were suggested as per cleaning the boundaries. Yeah, no, I think I just want to understand what we were changing, particularly if we're changing any of the census blocks that have population in them, but also just to make sure that they don't make the map look weird. Okay, Mike, can you share the latest versions with the little changes. Yes, that is right here. Can you guys see my screen. Yes. Right so, I mean, can you make it larger on the bottom is a big change. Yes, so that the changes Tracy. Well, everyone were all of them were changes every change my understanding was suggested and implemented in this map because when people were trying to write the legal boundary descriptions. So it was very, very, very difficult to describe what those boundaries follow in each of these cases. So the first case was down here around Hampshire College. It was much more of a clean looking boundary. But as Peggy pointed out in an email last week, the boundary went something like this east to west with a little bit of a loop in there. The census block boundary did not follow any natural or man made boundary at all. So, isn't that the bound is that boundary currently on the current district map or no. Yes, yes, it is very similar. So how did they describe it then. Well, Oh, I see what you're saying. I mean, not that it matters. I think this delineation is more close to what the current. Okay, boundary looks like. So basically, Peggy moved some blocks here that don't affect any population. There were no people in there according to the census, and these now follow internal streets within the Hampshire College campus that was one change. Another change, I believe. So maybe could we just do we want to disagree on changes one by one. Yes, I mean how many are there Mike. There's three change, I would consider them three changes. Okay, I think this one, I don't think there's any debate this one has to be done because I can't even believe that those things were actually that's an actual census block boundary. It should not be where that we were following previously. No, sure. There was no way for Peggy to delineate that boundary using a description. I think it was measured and the only way was measure a certain amount of feet from some town boundary. And go another extra number of feet from nothing to nothing so we know. Well, I mean that's what I mean I found out. I'll talk about the ones like precinct four and precinct 10 later but I think the version that it looks like now Mike it looks a lot like the current precinct map. Yeah, right. Yeah, I'm just looking at that at the same time. Sure. Yeah, and that passed them. That's that's a good point to make because that passed. So and then the second one was a change that arena suggested up here I think when somebody was writing the description between precinct two and precinct six. Okay, so let's just to move to the railroad right of way shapes from one precinct into another so that the description would be able to just follow that railroad boundary cleanly. Okay, so let's say, like, if you want, I can tell the. It was like right here wasn't it. So Mike is this is this is the new version, or the, like, this is this is the new version, the corrected version. Alright, yeah, I was just pointing it up on the precinct map, like the map tool. I might be able to see if I have it. So you want to know I think I would be fine if it's just the railroad. Yeah, so it went between describing power line between. It's very narrow you won't be able to see the difference it was between the power line and and the railroad. Well, on the power line you had to cross through unknown name Brooke to somewhere to get to the railroad and then continue in the variable so it was much cleaner to go along the railroad with population zero. Right. So it was whether we put the zeros is this issue whether we put the zeros on one on the other and not checking before that it was available. Yes, so on the on the right we have the map we approved last meeting and on the right we have the new one and if. Right. Very clean right here there's like a little bit of a jog. So wait is that that one with the 19. Because at 19 with a 19 will be the third one that we look at. But it's 51 not 19 19 voters arena 51. Yeah. Yeah, so that was that was edit number two and edit number three. If you look on the left is the new map and on the right is the old map, the map we approved last week. It's this little triangle shape right here. So we have 51. Okay, 51 people 19 registered voters moved from precinct one into precinct three again to make the, I believe arena that was to make the description easier to write. Correct. Yes. But they are, it wasn't along the street. No, no. No, no, it was on a secondary street so it's a street that converts on a service road. There was a there's a kind of a road that converts into a service road, and what the state had sent us. So the on the what the state that went on the legal description they just went up and down and it was like oh yes, that should be there. Okay, but the service road so we're changing it to the use that service road. No, no, we're changing it to use the main road state street and some some people. So the one on the, because you would keep that little peak. So which is the new one. I'm sorry. So one on the left. Left is a new one. Oh yeah okay. Yes, so now is that if the border is the main streets. Okay. Yeah I see that. Okay so that means that changes. So now, can you put, can you go down to population. One is three nine four two three nine. So two and three, three, eight, seven, seven, seven. So potentially. So that one is changing from precinct three to precinct one right. Okay. So, so one is that I don't know I'm sorry it's changing around precinct yes sorry it's changing from precinct one to precinct three. Okay, so one one if, and the numbers are still okay. Yes. So one, one thing that we could do is based on the input from the, the comments that we got is to transfer the corner of pine street. I think we should do it both because we've now gotten a few comments to that. It also keeps that group of people in their current place. Yes. So it's less people that get moved. Yes. So we're moving to person three fifty one and we move out. Forty three. I think we should do it both because we've now gotten a few comments to that. So it's less people that get moved. Yes. So we're talking about taking the boundary this little square right here. Right. Putting it into precinct one. Yes. So I don't know enough about this, but are there. Would that then are there houses along here and along here that would now, those people would be. No, I mean, it's currently, Mike, it's currently in. So it's a commercial building that has apartments upstairs. And I actually think, and I actually think this little road thing might actually be there's like a driveway back there. No, no, that's, that's about that's every street. Okay. So right now it's like that that corner is in one precinct. And the rest of the solid block is in another position. Okay. So, um, should that make, we can make a motion to approve the map with the changes that this is the map that we are submitting. Second it. Okay. So Tracy, Safian. Yeah, that's fine. You didn't know how many I paid Shannon. Hi. I'm Marlene Blaston. Hi. Hi. Great. Thank you. So we have our map. Final, final, final. Just two finals. Final final. Hopefully not. So someone's going to, I'm going to work on that map. I'll have it first thing in the morning. Someone else is going to work on editing the boundary description to include that. So we're going to have to include the boundary description to include that. I can do that. To include that description. I, the, this is an announcement, the final version, I think I just sent around the final version of the boundary descriptions of all the other precincts. So they are out there. I think it's on the, I think. I sent, and I'm going to request that Mike, and so I've loaded a wait until I correct this one and we can upload it. Okay. Okay, great. So we have them up. So now the numbers are going to slightly change. So Michael, you close the old one. Yes. So all we did right is we just changed that. So it's a net change of 43. That's a 51 and the 43. No, no, but that's already computed in here. Correct. On this table is already computed. Okay, but we hadn't know what I'm saying from the last map. So Mike, when you sent me data before, did you, had you changed either of these. You send me data right after the meeting. I'll look, I'll look at it. Because the numbers that I've been using were the ones from the data that you sent me. So then that's only a net population change of nine or something or eight, whatever. Yeah. That's correct. Okay, so let's, so this goes into the report editing and looking first, we should look at the maps that Tracy wanted. Yes, I just emailed everybody, the revised version of the report based on comments that I received today. Okay. And there are the only significant changes. The most significant changes are in the characteristics of the map. There's a couple of added statements. And also, there's a paragraph. I think that the second paragraph in the process section is, is fairly different. So, okay. But I think before we get to that point, Tracy wanted to see if we could look at some maps to see to include. So Mike had prepared. So a couple of maps that Mike and I had talked about one was, and a lot of these can go in the appendix. So he had created a new version of the population density map that Peggy has in the report currently. Yeah, and it's only there because somebody had put it in before me. I mean, we can either put it in the appendix or we can, but he, so I just made a few suggestions to Mike with that map to make it a little cleaner. Okay. Including labeling some of the apartment complexes that weren't labeled before. Oh, look, he already did it. But, but not with our new approved boundaries or something. Right. No, I did both. I did both just to be safe. Okay, but Mike, this one is going to need to change now with the little corner on. I know. It's just like, it's just like dominoes. You're trying to get a hold of it. I was, I was trying to be so ahead of it and have everything ready. But nope. So I guess one question with this map is do we want to show it with the senses. Do we want to show it with the districts and the precincts or not? Do we think it's good to have it that way or not? You know, honestly, I don't find this map all that useful. And maybe that I'm not saying we shouldn't include it, but it's just it's it's dizzying and it's hard to understand what it is that I'm looking at. Right. So I tried. The only way I think that map is going to be very useful is to make it all one color, but then we would have to. We when we tried doing that earlier when the very beginning when we first got the data, everybody wanted to see the breakout of classes in more detail and then it having everything in one color or two colors it became very difficult to tell the difference between things so Mike, can you pull that back up? So, so the reason that we had, I mean, the thing I had liked about this map is that it visually displays how and I added this text in the report I think and in the presentation is that I had calculated I looked at all the on campus housing. And the on campus housing contains 41% of Amherst population in 2% of the land area of Amherst. And so I had suggested that with this map we maybe don't show precinct boundaries and districts because when they're proposed but the main idea is that we just have this population that's not evenly distributed. That we have these super dense areas and we have the much less dense areas, but I mean if it's helpful, you could have fewer gradients because I think what there's like 10 or more right now. That's what we wanted originally I'll make it I'll make it I'll reduce it like five or something or yeah and that will make it much more easier to understand. Is it possible to do the colors in such a way that there. Oh yeah. It's also a gradient of some way that's sort of done the demographic. Yes. Or, you know, this is a, this is another map that we were going to talk about very shortly this is, this is density of voter registration so the darker green is more people the lighter green is less registered voters so I can do, you know, ranges of voters in many different ways and that was, that was the original goal with that density map but it just didn't make sense with you folks wanting to see so many different classes. Well, I think on the original map we just had a question because like Southwest like hits that 2512 rock is so high. And I think your gradients like ended at like, I don't know 500 plus or something that we could go back to that. I mean because in the report originally we said that there were many, there were quite a few precincts that were over 5,000 population that's not actually true I think there's only like maybe one or two and that the majority. I mean there's about 10 that are over 500. Right, but they're pretty much outliers, since we have 423 blocks. Okay. I think, because I don't think we can include all these maps in the report. We can put them in the appendix. I think it can be on the appendix. That would not be on the core of the report. No, absolutely. I think in the course of the report. I don't know if people agree I think the population density I think it's important to know where people are located. I don't know if I would put the. I think it's important to have the founders of the presence as we are proposing them to give an indication but I agree that the 10 or the so many colors might be decent, maybe one way to do it is have a kind of two scales up to certain scale up to 1000 and 1000 plus. There's very few over 1000 though, I guess I would get two right there's like one or two over 1000 wonder well there's a 2512 and there might be maybe one other but there might be zero. Yeah. I think it's there's only that's the only one over 1000 I think 900 we can choose an arbitrary number and choose it. You could say five, you could say 500 or more. That would pull some 500 or more has about 10. Okay. So can we just go back to the density map them. And we'll just busy map make everyone. Yeah, that does have a lot of colors but can I mean what if we just take the precincts. The idea was just to, you know, visually show that there's this disparity with the population. So maybe we should, I think we should take the precincts and districts all. Yeah, so that's what I really clean up the map a lot. Mm hmm. Okay, so I'll do that and I'll send it to who will be inserting this into the fendix. I believe it will be me. Okay, I'll send it to you. Okay. Is there any other. So the demographics that we want to include it on the report and Mike can you just put that in the packet to, and then I'll put it in the presentation okay. Yes. And it's going to need the change on the, so if we don't have some Mike if you don't put the layers of the prison boundaries then you don't need to change the prison boundaries on this one is just great correct. Right. Okay. That's good. It all ties together wherever if I change it in one place it's going to trickle down. Okay, but it does mean I have to like hit the X. Yeah, so then. Alright, so could we just talk about a couple of the other maps so Mike showed me some race. maps. And those are the same ones that we talked about last time. So we will need to update those with the slightly changed precinct boundary. So one question I had for people so Mike use the same gradients on the legend it looks pretty clean to me and it shows, you know that we're keeping people together within the districts that we were setting up. I did have one suggestion about with these titles when we say total black African American population for Amherst so I suggested that we actually put the number there. Because some of the subset of race populations are actually pretty small, like even for the whole town, as in less than 1000 people or something. So that would just in case people aren't adding up the numbers by themselves or something that would just be one data point and so. So one question I had was that so there is so there's this map and then the gradients are the same and the colors on the. So Mike did one for all the different race populations and maybe we could just go through them because I think for some of the ones that have really small populations maybe we just don't show those maps. I produced them all. Just, again, they have them at our fingertips to use to if we want to, which now means that we're changing that one block to go back and produce them all over again, but you know, I know I feel like we if we have them all I feel like we should use them all. I mean if we're putting one in the appendix I feel like we should put them all in the well so I would put them. I mean my suggestion would it be to put the African American population, the Hispanic population and the Asian population though, you know the Asian populations interesting because some Asian sub populations are, you know, more disenfranchised or disadvantaged than others. So I mean Asian is such a large category. And so there's all because those are the three sub populations that have the highest numbers. The one, and then Mike also produced because these are also categories in the census so this is a question I had for the group is there's one for Native American population. And that number is really small for the whole town. Yeah, is there a way that we can combine some of these categories so should there be a map that just shows shows population of color a BIPOC however we want to characterize it. So we can include 100% of the population for whom we know race or ethnicity. We can include those small numbers or have one that's other populations of color. So then we could be collapsing Native American. I don't know what how we do mixed or multiple. And I know that Hispanic and Latino or that's so there's citizenship and there's race. Hispanic non Hispanic population and some of those Hispanic will self identify is white or black or African American or some other. It's not it's not citizenship it's like just Hispanic or Latino citizenship I said race ethnicity. I understand that Tracy. Yeah, I'm Latina I'm considered Latina. Yeah, so how do we, how do we want to represent it. Those people who don't fit neatly into one of those categories probably would want us to want to be represented in some way shape or form. So the people who are multi race for any of the race boxes that they checked they appear on those maps, Marilyn. So like for example if somebody identified as say African American and white. They would appear on, or say they identified as African American and Asian they would, their numbers would appear both on the African American map and the Asian map. So is there a way of collapsing them so it's multi race, one race. I guess we could I guess, but in my tendency would be to keep them separate. Alternatively, we need to put a note on there saying that this is a duplicated count. People want a non white. I don't know if that would be okay. You can be white and non white but I think you know like certain groups, you know, would consider it important to be identified. So as a secondary so as a one map and then the other category, then we can have some examples of where, but as a percentage is sorry, you wanted to include most of the population have those the, the, as a main as a main document, and then the ones that you created as, as examples of other details. Well, yeah, I don't know. I mean, so one, for example, I don't want to include this other race category other race one because I also think that it includes people. Like as people are filling out the census that if people are Hispanic, you know and they're going through and they may identify as racially Hispanic but the census Bureau makes that on the census they make it a separate question. So this other race category like people who aren't African American or Asian or, you know, native Hawaiian and American Indian that they, I just feel like there's a lot of things that are lumped into here, including how people interpreted it when they're filling out the census. And in terms of identifying you know are these, who are the, who are these populations, I would tend not to show this map. Well, it depends on what the question is how racially ethnically diverse is the town of Amherst, and it would be nice to be able to show in some way, and we can define how we want to do it. Those people who are essentially it would be the non white population, or, or we could have a map. We can have one map that shows white non Hispanic population. Well, I'd rather show it the other way. I mean, you have to show the percent or how can you show the percentages or maybe that's in the context of the report that there are some numbers where you show the percentages white non white or something. I'm really uncomfortable with divide with putting all the people of color in a non white category just the language itself. Yeah, I know that's why I want to suggest that language all I'm saying is that that's my short hand, but I understand that but I think racially ethnically diverse is this town and oftentimes people like one number, which I don't necessarily agree with but to just identify the larger you know Hispanic, African American Asian and we know that's sort of a conglomerate of lots of different groups of people. What is that. I'm not sure what it says I'm not sure what the message should be, you know we talked about having sort of diversity or not watering not diluting the diversity by assigning groups to precincts and districts. How do we demonstrate that we've, we've accomplished that. Okay, my head has come up and then piggy. Hi, yeah, I would just like to add in because I'm an Asian woman myself I think. I think that distinction is extremely essential because just because of how diverse the whole Asian population is. Specifically, we can see that certain groups of Asian people are also more advantage when it comes to income levels or when it comes to just how they're doing in general are compared to others so it isn't as homogeneous as you consider his population to be. So, I think it would be nice to keep it at that distinction but I completely understand if we cannot because just the city say it would be okay I guess but yeah. Thanks Peggy and then Tracy. I don't think that we should present the data as people self identified in the census, I don't think that we should be putting groups together because we don't really know how people would feel about that so people self identified as black or African American self identified as Hispanic or Latina Latin X they self identified as Asian. Yes, is there problems with the data of course lots of different problems, but what we're given is the data from the census I think that's what we present. So how do we represent those small groups like the native and Hawaii and other Pacific Island and those other populations. We either include the map with the small group and and make it clear that this is a very small number of people, but we don't include the map and we say we've included the three largest populations. As they self identified. Have we included everybody. No, we haven't. We know that, but we want to make it. Clear to people what what's important here is we're trying not to dilute minority voting strengths. That's that is a mandate from the state. How do we do that well we need to be able to identify where there are neighborhoods of strength. So is there a table where you show the actual numbers and percent so that you're incorporating those very small groups just to say yes. I mean, we can have a table with the with the numbers and percent and so what I had suggested with Mike on in the map is where it says total you know Native American other Pacific Islander population I mean we could have a number there. It would be, I don't know I think it's probably in the hundreds. And that would be identify like that whole population I mean if you look up it's very small. Like this is one map to Peggy's point I mean I was suggesting that we would have the three largest groups and we could have a table that shows the other groups to part part of the reason I saw for seeing this map is. I was describing that when you have the voting precincts or sorry, the, you know the voting districts that you want to make sure that you're not splitting up these populations and communities and that you are to the extent possible creating a minority majority type districts, so that they feel like they have a voice and I felt that way with the African American map, for example. You know that it seems like the African American census, the ones that have the highest number of African Americans are showing that I don't feel that I mean the Asian category is really complicated and unfortunately we don't have at some point the census data gets released that shows, you know by country and so on but we don't have that level of data and Asian is a huge category, but it is what it is I mean we can only show what we have and. And I would not show that other race category because it's just it seems they're just, I mean I know that people self identified as other race but we don't know what that means. So, I think it's, it seems too complicated to me. I would keep our maps simple. Not adjusting we do it on the map I'm just suggesting that the data showing it. We can have a little bit of tabular data for sure. Definitely. So Mike has his kind of enough. Yeah, I was, I was just going to say, my opinion. I'm not a voting member but I would, I would feel most comfortable if we included all of these race maps in the, the appendix. Just like what Peggy mentioned, you know, somebody identified as native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. Not many of them in town but let's, let's, let's show them, you know, as equally as we show the dense population of Asian people in town and I just think that's the fairest way to display everyone. Other race is confusing. Like, honestly, I say we included and, you know, maybe what we do is between now and then we go back and we look at that it's the, the metadata that the Census Bureau provided us when they, we first received the data and maybe we grab a description of what other race, what they define other race as, or the question that maybe we can populate on that on here because we have a lot of questions about it too but it is something that's recorded in the data and it does differentiate some groups of people from the other and it does add up. It is what gets us to 39,263 people in town are some people in this group. So I, it's my personal opinion that we should include all of them. If we're including one or two of them, I think we should have them all. So. So then Mike, I think, like one thing with Hispanic the Hispanic category right because people can identify as Hispanic or non Hispanic and then also be of any race. So we would need to. So that would be the only place. No, I guess, I mean, we might need to have maybe some language on the maps just say that people could be in multiple categories or something. Yep. Actually, that's not just for Hispanic justice in general. Okay, so just for clarity. I'm hearing that people want to see all these maps there but with a caveat note saying we have to find a text to describe other race and the question I have is do we have time by tomorrow to do it. Because we need to submit the report tomorrow right. So the debate here is whether we include, maybe we should have had this discussion early earlier. The question I have for everybody is if people would feel okay. I don't know if we have time to go into the race or just put a description that we have a good description for the first four maps, or, and then it's as people describe on the on the census as other race and more information can be found on the census data but just for just for, I'm trying to figure out whether by tomorrow we can come up with a good description for this map. Or we go with Peggy like saying this the top three, and that's it. I mean, I mean, to Mike's point we could just put them all in and then also people wouldn't feel like they're left out. We don't need you don't necessarily we don't need to necessarily discuss them all in the report and I'm happy to put together a table of all the numbers. And Mike you were going to, on the map, can you just put the total at the top. Absolutely. And then that's, and then we'll just have that number two, right. Absolutely. And we'll just have a note on the table that just says you know people can be in multiple categories. I think and that is all self identified data. So that can be at the opening of the appendix supplemental material supplemental maps with some demographics. And it can be people identify, can be identified, can be represented multiple this much depending on how they represent the self of the census. But I think that that I mean we can put the maps themselves in the appendix but we might want to have just a sentence or two of tech in the text because that was one of the reasons that we were doing some of the boundaries the way we did like I know that Peggy had spent a lot of time looking at the race data. Yeah, I agree that there has to be a comment on on the on the on the report but as an opening or whatever saying as an opening of the appendix is a appendix C, or D. Three lines describing what are the maps and then we put them up the format. Okay, that's fine. I can provide that description. Okay, thanks. My name has to have enough. Yeah. Yeah. You're muted Marilyn. So on the census, I'm not familiar with the categories in the US census. I there. I'm seeing some other race is that how they just check other into they have to describe what other is. They just check other. There are other census questions that deal like with country of origin and things and that's the data that isn't released yet so we can't fill in those pieces. Maybe. So should you are highlighting the other race. So who said highlighting the script right Mike. I found it while we were chatting right now. Okay. So maybe that's what it has to be included on right. And we will put that in the appendix. Yes. Okay. Good. We can also have a web, you know, a hyperlink to the actual like report the data dictionary thing. Okay, so we have the maps now to the core of the report. Somebody else want to share the core of the report. So can, so we had that last map do we want to show a map with the voters voter spatially or no. Mike, Mike, Mike, hold that one up with the green. I'm, I'm concerned. I think that can be called for the presentation. But the, this is something that we looked, and the question is whether we included or not because the task is for the, the AB is to look at the residents, right. We went beyond and look at register voters because of the nature of the town that is not. It's not. It's a college town so we have a different dynamics of most towns have. So we went and look into the registration but the, the DB is supposed to look at messings. So the question is whether probably should be there because we use the information to create our. And our, and our report isn't going to the state, right. I mean, all that's going to the state is the map and the legal descriptions and the other requirements this map is for the council. So I'm, I'm for including because that has guided some of our principles and some of our boundaries and how we made the decision so I think it's important to include it. I don't know if people do we want to include it in the center of the report or as an appendix appendix appendix appendix. Yeah. Okay, thank you. Peggy, since you have the report you want. I, it would be much easier for me not to share it. Okay. So somebody else could do it. Long story. Can somebody show it also I don't have it. Yeah, I can. Let me find it. Thank you. Thank you. Sure. Well Tracy gets it. I'm noting noticing that we don't have anybody taking minutes. Is that can we do that from the beat me. Yes, I was going to say, I don't know if you want to rely on that did you. You know what, I wonder when I came in and you guys started I wonder what they just thought it was taking minutes, but I've been writing things down so. Sue has minutes. They can, they can be sparse minutes. They're going to be very sparse. We're going to have to meet up. Back log. Yeah. Okay. So here's a report. Peggy, do you want to speak to anything that you were editing? You're the couple there. So there are a number of typos. Thank you everybody for those and little grammatical things. Tracy made a more substantial change in the process. So I can go down to. Okay. There that that second paragraph there. So if people want to read that over. I actually had a question too on the first paragraph. It says the US census bureau divides half the town into census blocks which are bounded by street center lines railroad tracks power lines and bodies of water. That's not the only boundaries. Because I know, I know in them, like with precinct four and precinct 10. Which I mean I could also pull that but those maps literally are like these little jagged lines. So I don't even know how they were drawn. I mean, if you put them mainly there, it solves the issue. Maybe or principle. I'll edit it right here. Okay. Because I mean they were completely arbitrary how those lines is exact through the dorms. Okay. So the, so the only thing I, I mean the thing I had added with paragraph two is I did want to, and maybe this wasn't the right place because I did really like how Peggy had described it like a fundamental difficulty with the disordering is the that you have, you know, the certain population and the population density and then you also have the fact that so much of our population aren't voters. So, so the reason I had changed that paragraph was just to insert the information about how 41% of Amherst population resides in just 2% of the geographic area. Because that was also in the 2011 GB report and it does speak to how challenging it is to do this. But so if anybody had any comments on that, I also did change it here about how there's several census blocks in the 500 and above range, because there really weren't that many in the thousand range. Do people think it's okay. I like, I like the changes you made, although I might prefer to go back to the first sentence making it clear that really the problem is there's right now I dance places with very few voters, but I can I mean, I didn't know how to kind of insert that data heavy sentence with. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So there's that. And then the other I think. So I think we were going to take this map out. Is that correct. Yes. You did you say you wanted to keep density in the main report arena and then put in appendix. I usually every now and then I like to have an image so that to make an impact but I don't know if the people are going to get distracted by having an image. Maybe in the main body of the report, could we just put the actual census map, maybe we could do it that way, or something like that. It's going to be eligible. The one with the, with the numbers. Yeah, no, there aren't ones that we it's going to be completely uneligible. So I'm, I'm okay if we put all the maps at the back and we make a reference to appendix be my three. Okay, if I were to put a map in the report, would it be the. The one that we are proposing. Yeah. Okay. So the population density. No, the district, the district. The precincts. The precinct and the district map. Oh, the one with proposing got it. Yeah, so that, so that is clear. And then at the back, we put all the maps and then we can make reference here appendix see. Okay. Map one population. Oh, okay. All right. Okay. So this, this number of 35 scenarios. Did we really look at 35 scenarios? I made 35 maps. I made 35 maps. And you weren't counting and Mike wasn't counting the big and the little. So if you count two that we had done the 15. Precincts and districts. And then we also did, even after 10, we had at least 20. Because like we would tweak them, right? We had at least like map one had at least like, I don't know, we had a lot of maps. Including the now the final final and the less final. And then we had the map three and we had map two. Okay. So we, we had a lot. By the letter of the law, we had a lot. How many did we have by the spirit of the law? I mean, I, I want to get, I, I only want, I don't want people to feel like we had, if you spoke about on the table, there were really 35. Okay. Distinct maps. I don't know. Mike, what, what you would make in the maps. I'll have to go back and look. I don't want to give you more work. Why don't we just say like over. I mean, it was at least because the radio did like three. We, and we did the 15 maps too. I would say at least like 15 to 20. Okay. That were distinctly different and not just like tiny edits or something. But I would say like, you know, you know, over. I suggest calling it maps rather than scenarios because some of these we didn't, we just dismissed. I don't know. Maps. Over 20. You know, we can say different, you know, distinct maps or something. Oh no, maps of possible. Yeah. That sounds good. Different precincts and recreated. Using the precinct builder map tool. And I'm not sure if we say precinct slash district pairings because part of it was looking at different pairings of precincts within districts. It was still the same information that we're looking at. Yeah. I'm not sure. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Absolutely. Cause that was like, cause Mike is internally doing all the. Okay. Okay. All right. And then that's, this is such a strong report, I think. And then the other. Changes. Okay. Still waiting on a number. For the variants. So I'll have to see when Mike funds the final map. I mean, I noticed that on the table, but people. I had difficulty looking at variants and saying, is this a percentage? Is this a number? What does it really mean? It's sort of a very broad term. And I think we're using it very specifically in some cases, maybe not here, but in, in other instances. That's the way the state defines it. I think too. Cause. So. But readers don't know how the state defines it. So either we need a definition. Of variants. Describe it. Because variants like statistics and statistics. It's not the way the state is using it to me. Right. It's true. Because this is actually a percentage that they turn into a whole number by multiplying it by a hundred. So it's how it varies from the mean. With. Instead of having a percentage, you turn it into a number. So maybe it's like variation from the mean or something. So it's a little more specific. Yeah. Okay. A deviation from the. Deviation from the mean or deviation from the average. Something like that. It depends where if you are. Yes, if you use the average. I mean Mike explained how he calculated it, but it is, it is different than if you were a statistics person. Right. Yeah. I think we don't want to use variants because the state is not using it quite right. So, I mean, what we want to use because I need to put that. I need to title that column on the map that we produce. And give to the council. So what. And you need to call it variants even though the state. I don't think so. I don't think so. Yeah. Wow. So it's actually a distance from the average, right. Difference from the mean. Yeah. But it's like, it's like a percentage that's multiplied by a hundred. So that's why. Well, you could describe as a number of points. 10 points. Right. Right. So can you say something like percent difference from the mean? I don't think that's quite right there. That is, that is basically it. That's what it is. That is correct. Yeah. Different from. Difference from the mean or percent difference from the average. Yeah. Okay. Well, you can make a little percent symbol percent difference from the mean. Or maybe it's just a footnote, but you, I think you should put percent in. If it's a table. I agree. Okay. So percent difference from the mean or percent difference from the average, whatever fits better at the column top. Mike. Okay. Yeah. I agree with that. Yeah. Excellent. Okay. So there's that. So points two and three. We're not changed. They have the numbers, which of course now are a little bit wrong, but they're pretty close. I'm not going to worry about that. Okay. So the fourth and fifth points were added. So I had a question about the third, the third bullet is just when it said 81% of residents. Precincts remain the same. So the thing is that the precincts. I know I changed it and you had kept it. But to me, it's like, because the priest, like all of the precinct boundaries changed. Yep. You're right. And so that's why I wanted. So I wanted, yeah. Well, so I wanted to just say like 81% of residents remained in the same precincts. Yeah, you're absolutely right. That's much better. I will fix that. Oh. I did, I did change the language now, but anyway. Well, this is your, this is your language, but I think it's still. No, I think I had tried to anyway, because I was trying to make it not possessive because it wasn't. Okay. I want to make it clear. So for example, in items. One, two, three, four, the proposed map changes in parent of some persons from the 2017. And when was the parent done by the charter? Yeah. Oh, that's a good point. From the current map. Okay. And the, the, sorry. And the districts. Created in. Well, so they first took effect in 2018. Right. At first took effect. Three years ago. And then. With the, you know, adoption of the charter. Homeroom chartering. And then the, for example, it's no longer parent. I think we have to be. I like numbers. Okay. So. Because of population changes, I think. I think it was over 79% of the voters will be in one district. Active voters. Right. Because if not in here, it's a little bit, it's a little bit. To decrease the different franchisement of voters in prison seven, it was. It's a little bit cryptic. And if somebody knows what we are talking about. I saw, I think so. Okay. All right. So on the second bullet, it says the student dormitory populations and active voters are distributed as evenly as possible. But I think. The student, the student population and the active voters are two different things. Yes. Right. And so we could have a separate bullet for that because the active voters is part of why we separated seven from eight. I think we should put two bullets there. Okay. Active voters one to the map changes. Yeah. So maybe put the other bullet about the, the, the register voters before. Okay. Before the pairing. Okay. And then, and then add your mind had the pairing been the same. Nearly 40% of the voters would have been in one district. Yes. So we have to. Sorry. So. Don't worry about the formatting. No, I know. Of course. So the proposed. So, oh, so we could just. So, well, do we want the bullet with the voters in this or. I think. Well, I think you want it. I think you want to separate. You want to say active voters. Okay. So. Okay. So the proposed map. Redistributes. Active voters, active voters. As evenly as possible more evenly. So Tracy, I was just saying replacing the copy in the trace from two. I'll give it. I just changed that. See the student dorm populations. Sorry. Okay. Okay. There's something. So I do. So one thing is, you know, I was looking today at the data. I'm going to stop screen sharing for a moment, but I was. Go ahead. But I was looking today at the data about just, you know, one in preparation because I was going to talk to district three. I was going to talk to the district three meeting, but then also just to show like where, where the numbers actually changed. And I had, I added something to a slide. So there is quite a bit of story about, you know, it may be too much detail to put in our presentation, but just in terms of where the numbers were actually changing and where they weren't. And. I'm just going to pull it up briefly. I'm just going to say one, I didn't want to focus just on precinct seven and precincts. Precinct seven and. And precinct eight. Yes. No, I think most of the prison, we had to change all the prison. So I think the message, I think we have to. Make sure that the message is. All prisons had to change. No, but they didn't. Nine out of eight, eight out of the. They had their own population. I'll show you. I mean, when I was actually looking at the numbers in terms of what changed and what didn't. That was the table that Mike had produced early in the other. Well, and well, so, but, um, I was actually looking at it by where to go. By the way, folks, I just published the, um, I just made that update to the map and published it. So it's now in today's meeting packet. Okay. So I'm just sharing on, can you can see the presentation? So I was actually just going through the numbers. So this was based on, based on the current precincts. How, how many, um, oh, this was with voters, but how many voters were changed in each precinct? No, but. How many voters were changed in these districts? Okay. But the issue is, I think the, the, what we have to transmit is. The prisons had to change. Oh yeah, of course. Then the precincts because they didn't. Satisfy the numbers. The precincts had to change because some were too high. Yes. Some were too high. Some were too low. Right. Of course. Yes. So the precincts had to change. Yes. In the precincts with the, with a non-uniform distribution. Right. Boundaries change. No, of course. Yeah. Once the boundaries change. Because of non-uniform distribution of voters. Of a residence. Once the boundary changed because none voted. The non-uniform distribution is not that we can just move one line from here to there and then that's it. It's not that people move from this. Precinct to this precinct. So we just slide the line. Right. Yeah. And I would suggest we move the student population down a little. No, but. Okay. Just because it doesn't seem like the most important factor, but the, no, I agree with you. But why not? So. Can you share the documents again? Oh, sorry. Yeah. I think that I don't know if that information we have provided. Somewhere. I think originally with the Vasa table. With the current, with the 2010. We can keep the precincts from changing. Yeah, we can. Yeah. We have a bullet for that. We could add that. That's something that I'm going to ask us. Right. No, we should do that. So, um, I'm confused. What do we. So I think what she's saying is she was saying that all precincts have less, you know, some of the precinct. boundaries because they were over. They did not satisfy the requirements. They were over 4,000. No, it's traces over and under. They did not satisfy the requirements by the state of the precincts as the current precincts because the don't call them current. It's different. So this strikes me as something that needs to be in the body of the report. It's not a characteristic of the proposed map. We can put this early on that with the population changes, there was no choice. We had to change the precincts. Okay, so I will add a statement to that effect. Well, and I think, yeah, yeah, so that's, I mean, you could even, you could even put this under the criteria that we knew we had to change, right, or something in this section. Well, I think I'll put it in the population of Amherst. We got the data from the census and it became clear. So we can also just say, you know, updated. Population was to populate a precinct population didn't meet requirements. Precinct population didn't meet. Now, out changing something like that. Right. Is that what we were trying to say now? Yes. Either by changing too big or. That, that, that's a scare. And did we, oh right. So, so actually, I mean, it says right here, I mean, we could even put it up here, but, you know, under mass general law, no precinct can have that. And so. Okay, but now that the bottom is okay. Yeah, it's okay. That's the justification for the whole process. Okay. So just, so just to the point about the characteristics of the proposed map that the, I mean, we did repair the districts. I mean, we, and it wasn't just seven and eight. So I didn't know whether we want to make points about those. And that's why I just showed that other graphic. Hey, we have an issue. We lost my heck. I just realized. Oh, she's gone. What? Yep. She's gone. I just realized. I saw her. Yep. Okay. So we're okay. Let me. We'll reach out to her and see what happened. She can just be logged in. She could. I don't know. I let me look at her phone number. Did we ever hear from Joseph? No. No, sorry. There's a call in listener too. But I don't know that number. It's not Joseph's last four digits. That's for sure. I mean, it's my heck. Can you check? I, let me, let me, let me tell you. Last four digits, five, eight, eight, nine. One second. I need to find the document. Yes, it is my heck. Is it? Yes. Let me put her in here. Thank you. Okay. All right. My heck. Okay. We are back in the meeting. It is getting late though. So we should. Yeah, we gotta wrap up. I think we're really close on the report. So I guess just with the, let's go back. Can you share again there? Yeah, I will share again. But I guess just, I mean, the question I asked is, do we want to have a bullet about why we changed some of the other precinct pairs too, or do we just want to cover it generally? Well, if we changed one, we must have changed another. So then the same bullet, similarly, blah, blah, precinct, whatever, and, you know, right? Well, yeah, I mean, the proposed map. Yeah, I mean, we could even include some of this under the bullet about the proposed map. Those are the other ones that we changed were precincts. Four is now pairs. So I have an issue with calling precincts. So things change and boundaries change. So it's precincts. We are calling the precinct four. Is it similarly enough to precinct four of 2011 that we can still have it first? Okay. Well, I think I had calculated. Hold on. It's okay. For the presentation, they were 80% or the same. Okay, good. Okay, okay. Okay, so I will add a line similarly. Okay, the last thing we have to talk about. Precinct five is now paired with precinct eight, whatever. And you can, you've already stated that precinct four and seven are paired in that first bullet. Right. Yeah, yeah. I'm just trying to get it down. Okay. Okay. Any other? Yes. The last bullet point. This is important. People need to weigh in on this. Okay. Oh, the neighborhoods. As I not isolated in an otherwise overwhelming white district, as much as possible. I think we don't, we didn't do a perfect job, but I think. It's true. It's true. As much as, I don't know if we should add as much as possible because there are some here and there. Well, we couldn't. Right. But I think that those two population groups are pretty well as much as possible. Okay. We did our best, but not always we could satisfy all the requirements. That's fine. Yeah. Yeah. Now I have a question. I think the fact that the state needs to receive on October 30th, I don't know if we whether we have to put it up front on the report. So the fact the state needs to have the final vote on the map by October 30th. If not, they take over and they make out their own map. That's my understanding. That's true. I mean, so I think that has to be, I think it's sufficiently important because if we, we receive a comment that we need to do 15 or 20 changes that are completely different. It's considering it's October, we won't hear until October 18th. This comes into another topic. I wanted to make sure that it's clear what's at stake at this moment. Can we have a summary paragraph at the front? Maybe. I mean, we do have this, all this narrative, but could we just have a summary, you know, that we met and we created all these different maps and like it needs to all be finished and it's very complicated too. I mean, we don't really discuss in here how hard it is to like play with the numbers. Like I know we do in the presentation. I just, I don't know. What do people think if we just sort of like an abstract of what we're saying, because it's five pages long, would we want to just have something very short? Sure. Or just dive into the report. I don't, I mean, it's just a, but that's where we could stress. Summary is always a good idea. That's what we could stress what Irene said is like we've looked at a lot of options and it's very, like anytime you make any change, it necessitates all these other changes and or something. Okay. So. So, okay, we can talk. Okay. Okay. So, all right. And then, so then we said we're putting some of these different maps in the appendix. Now, do we feel like we have to put the current precinct and district map, the one that's presently enacted? Do we need to put that in the appendix too? I think we should include it because people for completeness. No, yeah, that's fine. Okay. And this one is going to slightly change. All right. And we're not going to call this variance. We're going to, all right, we need to change these numbers slightly. Okay. I did, I updated these with Tracy's numbers. So it's a 10,178. Oh, they'll change because we just changed the map. That's what you mean. Yeah. Yeah, but we just changed it by the tiniest amount. So I can send you like the columns that changed. Wait, the proposed precinct, wait, we have a problem. The map, this is 3993, right? It's the number, right? Because I thought it was not 3993. It just went over. Is that what you're saying? If we change that block, it would go over. I thought it was 394. It's 398. It's 3985 as of the most, we're looking at what? The proposed. Precinct one, precinct one is now at 3985. 3985 with a change. With all of the changes that we've made. Okay. So then what's precinct three then? Because that precinct three is 3834. Mike, do you have the variance on this? I am not a wizard, not yet. I'll get that very quickly. Seems like a wizard to me, actually. All right, so we, I guess we just want to double check. Like, we'll just want to double check the numbers. If you give me, if you give me like 30 seconds, I'll have it. Okay, great. Thank you. That sounds like a wizard to me. It does. I have a ridiculous spreadsheet that I've been, I have all the different tabs for all the different variations of every map that we've made. All right, so I just, I'm going to highlight it. Just a second. So I just have a comment on current districts. That's based on the 2021 population. But on the 2011, so does it need to be a note saying? Yeah, maybe we should say. Yeah. Okay. I would say current districts. I would say 2017 population. Sorry. But current, I would call it 2017 map and 2018. It passed in 2018. No. Okay. And on top is 2011 precincts. That's going to confuse people, but because the 2011 precincts map into districts, and even though it was 2018, the numbers don't change between those two points in time. Yeah, but they don't change that. That's how the law works, right? We don't, we cannot, the precincts are set by the census. The charter set the districts based on. But it's based on 20, it's based on the 2010 census. So maybe. Okay, 2010. We want to say 2010, that's. And the districts, it could be maybe just a footnote saying it was done in 2018, but it's still based on the 2010 population. Okay. That's all. It's just gets, I mean, it's confusing as it is, but to see 2018 jump out at you, and if people don't understand that we created districts in 2018. It's just a little more than modeling. I have the variants. Do we want, do you want me to tell, read it off to you right now? No, so we can like paste it in or whatever. Okay. Okay. Okay. So as next steps, I can suggest a motion, but I would to approve pending changes and also allow maybe a working group to help Peggy to finalize the report pending the changes or. So. I second that. Okay. Marlene Lundstein. Yes. Peggy Shannon. Hi. Yiren Ohamne. Hi. Tracy Safian. Hi. Maheek Gelani. She is muted. Yeah, I think it's okay. Can raise her hand. Can you raise your hand? Do you know how to raise the hand on the phone? I think it's star nine. Yes, we can hear you. I, okay. Sorry. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Great. So the motion passes and I can offer to be part of the working group tomorrow morning, working on finalizing the report. Excellent. Okay. We can arrange afterwards how to meet. Yep. Okay. Okay. Yay. So hold on. Hold on. So seven, 30 tomorrow. I'm going to cancel that. Yes. Okay. Okay. So for the presentation, do we want to wait? Tracy, wait one second. Before I get into the presentation. All right. So we have this. We're going to send them a report and Sue is going to send us the vote that they has to be added so that for the town. Yes, I can do that. Okay. Now the presentation, we should create a working group. Yes. To work on the presentation. Yes. Everybody's some favor of having a working group, working on presentation or any objection or no work? No. I hear no objection. Okay. So we're going to have a working group working on the presentation to be done at the town council on the 18th. Does it have the same timeline as the report? Because the report is tomorrow, so we have some more days. Now for the town council, I'm going to request that we call for a meeting. In case we have quorum, if everybody's present on the town council presentation and we don't have quorum, we cancel the meeting and we meet as panelists at the town council. Unless the one that would be okay. No, I think that was, I mean, I suggest that just in case we want to have like if the student, if Joseph can come and they can speak to the students, because I think questions might come up about because some of what we're changing a lot are the students in terms of districts and precincts. So the time that we have to present is 20 minutes and then there's going to be comments and there is also public comment at the meeting. So I'm going to request that we are all made panelists at the town meeting. Okay, I deferred it. I got asked during the week and I said that it was different until this meeting to make the decision. So I'm going to send the information tomorrow. So are the public comments after the council comments? Is that correct? I don't remember. Okay, that's fine. And right now we are stated to go at 7 p.m. on the 18th. Okay, hopefully that's true. I think if you march everybody, we can start making noises. Okay, now we might have, we have already on the schedule a meeting for the 20th. In case we get comments from the town meeting about if we have to make any changes, I hope not because that means that I think town council will have to meet again. I don't know what will be the procedure if they have to vote, see things twice, they will have to meet twice. So that's a comment I have. But we have a meeting stated for the 20th in case we have to, any case, I think we have to meet because we need to approve minutes. So beyond the changes, I think we need to meet to make changes to approve the minutes that we have from year's pass, from meeting's pass. Do we want to plan for the presentation? If we have a working group who wants to? I think the working group, we could also talk. I'm happy to be on the working group and we could talk about the presentation. Yeah, Peggy, you will. I'll be on the working group. Yeah, me too. I've been the liaison. Now, we're going to skip the minutes if that's okay, and we defer them to the 20th. Good. Okay. But I can't do it until the weekend. Okay. So if you do the work before the weekend, then. And then you can edit them, have a pass and give comments. I will try. Yeah. Okay. So I do have a question about the presentation is, I just, I know a number of the counselors look at materials for the council meeting packet over the weekend, just because it's usually, it gets pretty lengthy. And so I had been thinking that we might want to just to give the council members a chance to look at it if they're really busy on Monday, that we would want to at least share a preliminary slide deck with them on Friday. And that way it could go into the packet with the caveat that it isn't like the final version or something. What do people think about that? Or would you prefer that we just send it on Monday? I would have preferred to send it on Monday. They're going to have the full report. No, I understand. To read, but I'm open to other people's comments. I think if we have a pretty good deck in place by Friday, then I'm okay to put it in the packet. If it still feels like it's we're working and hashing it out, we wait. Yeah. Okay. Okay, great. Any other items that I'm missing from? No? Have we said? Okay. Yes, we have written records. The longest meeting for the DIV in a one. So we still have participants. So we have a public comment. If the panelist, if the attendees wants to raise the hand, the hand is raised. She wants to comment again. Yes. I, it's fewer, you use fewer with units and less with, no, it's the other way around. Fewer with people and less with masses. Non-discrete numbers. So in your first bullet point, you've got a word change. Thank you very much. It's been very informative and I appreciate your hard work to get this done. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Okay. All right. I move to adjourn. Second. Marlene. Yeah. Hey. Hi. Peggy Shannon. Hi. Tracy Saffian. Hi. Maja Gilani. Hi. You didn't have any eye. We are adjourned. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Thanks, everybody. Thanks, Mike. Thanks. Thank you. And if you want me to proof anything in the morning, you know, I'm happy to read. Okay. Peggy, after 8.30, I send you a message. Yeah. I can. Yes. After 8.30, I'm good. Okay. I send you a message. Send me a message. And yeah, yes. I'll make changes tonight and then we'll have something to work from. Okay. Thank you. Okay. All right. Good night. Good night.