 That is so typical recording. Thank you, Athena. I'm going to call senior presence of the quarter. I'm going to call this meeting of governance organization legislation to order. It is 1031 on April 21 pursuant to Governor Bakers March 12 2020 orders suspending certain provisions of open meeting law. This meeting of GOL is being conducted by remote participation and is being recorded. But it just touch base with everyone to make sure we can be heard and can hear. I'm starting with Mandy Joe. Present. And with Pat. Present. Sarah. Present. And Darcy. Yeah. Okay, good. So everyone is present. And we also have Emily taking notes and Athena, the council clerk is also there. We hopefully will have a chance to chat with her briefly later in the meeting. I'm going to put the agenda up on the screen. And we can see it. I could move it. There we go. So my intention is to follow the agenda pretty much as it's given here. I'm going to start with review of the GOL process for FIMCOM. We need to get some business to settle with that. So I see a hand raised. Darcy. Yeah, I just would request that we move the discussion of the ochre process up to earlier in the meeting. Okay. So I'm going to move the agenda. Either first or sometime in the first hour so that we can get to it. For sure. I hope, Darcy, I hope we'll get to it, but I kind of thought hard about this agenda. And I pretty much want to follow the order that we have here. We have a number of things we do have to get to. And I'm also thinking that some of the things we'll be getting to. We'll help inform item number six. I think it's a good idea to move this agenda as it is presented here. And it's just going to be, I think actually, since we have two members needs to spend a moment and just review the current process that this committee has been using and has adopted. So I would like to keep to the agenda as it is presented here. We'll move it as quickly as we can. And I'll keep an eye on the clock. My intention is to get through the entire agenda, including item six. But that's my intention. Can we get to it in the first hour? Because I will do my best, but I can't, I mean, we have a DAB. Issue we have to settle. I do want to speak to the council clerk. I want you bred briefly item five should not take very long at all. I don't think item four will take long. This will take a few moments. And then we'll get to six. So unless we get stuck in three. I think, and if that happens Darcy, we can, we can take a sort of time check. But I will certainly hope to get through it by this, by the beginning of the second hour. But I can't make any promises. Depends on how things go. Okay. Well, we can always reorganize if we need to. Right. All right. Yes, we can. Any other thoughts on the agenda? Because I'd like to get started. Okay. Let me. Stop sharing that. Let me open up. Put you over here. I want to begin with. Actually, let's look at the draft vacancy first. If you don't mind. Just open that. I'd like to. Hopefully everyone can see that. Need to be maybe a little bigger. Let's see if I can open it up. So this is what the usual. Vacancy notice looks like it was in your packet. It's pretty straightforward. And my intention is to put this up fairly soon, but we'll talk about it. That in a moment when we look at the process. I'm assuming everyone's had a chance to look at it. I don't have any questions about it. I don't see any hands. I just want you to see it. I'll hopefully have a chance to look at it. And this goes up on the bulletin board and. Depending on what we decide about the process. Could go up as soon as today or tomorrow. But we need to talk about the timeline and the process for a few months. Okay. Again, selection of resident members is based on relevant experience skills and policy knowledge, but it's a municipal and public finance. This is taken from our selection guidance and from. All right. Not seeing any hands. I'm going to close that. That away for the moment. And I'm going to put up the timeline. And then I want to look at the process for just a few moments. So. Part of the reason I want to do this with you is because we are going to have to do something very similar. With. And I have not heard back from Paul yet about the deadlines. But here I definitely dates on it. But basically we published a legacy notice. We collect the CAFs going back three years. We're going to be doing it in the next five or six months. And then the next meeting or is in the CAF pool, which I will share with you. Probably at the next meeting or the meeting after that. At some point we have to determine sufficiency of cool. We have to review our selection guidance. We already have existing selection guidance, but we will review it. Make sure that committee is happy with it. We will then solicit SOIs from the candidates. And there's a deadline they must meet user. They're given a week. And then we have to set the time for interviews. And we'll talk about that. And then once we. And again, we'll talk about whether we, in the past, we have done interviews and the vote at the same meeting. That's not the policy. That all committees follow. And then we notify the candidates afterwards. And we notify everyone. Who was interviewed. We have to set the time for interviews. And we'll talk about that. And then once we. And again, we'll talk about whether we, in the past, we have to set the time for interviews. Who was interviewed. What, what the outcome was. And these are some dates. We have to have this to the council. Well, we could be as late as June 28, but I don't see no reason to go that late. Because the, the. The end of the term is June 30. So hopefully we'll have it done much earlier. But that's going to depend on the process. And so, but this is the basic timeline. So I think that's a good point. Any questions about this or concerns about this? Okay. See any hands if, if, if, yeah, Mandy, go ahead. I just want to say, I recommend getting the vacancy notice published as soon as possible because it has to be 14 days on the bulletin board before we can determine the sufficiency of the applicant pool. So that's an automatic two week wait time. All right. Okay. So we're going to be doing this. Again, it's available. We need to look at it. That's right. Sorry, Darcy. Go ahead. That's all right. To take it off. I just have a practical question. Right. How, how many vacancies will there be? And. We just have one. There is one position that is an impending vacancy. The individual is. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. The terms are always two years. They're all two years. Yes. Right. And they're staggered. And the two year terms. And I have reached out to the chair to inquire as to whether the current member is interested in reappointment. And the answer I was given was yes. But I've not received a formal notice of. Of interest. But. I'm sorry. Who is the person? It's a. Hegner. Thank you. Bob Hegner. He is the, his position is. We'll be up for. To be filled. And as I said, he has informed. Through the chair. Not to me directly. Express an interest in reappointment. Or in reapplying. Okay. All right. Put that over there. And I want to look for a moment. I want to go with through you quickly, but I want you to see and. Comment on if you have any comments. About the. Process. So again, bear with me for a second while I. Find us. We seem to have disappeared. Okay. I'm sorry. For a screen. Okay. So this is the official policy adopted by. June of 2020. We have used it. In the past. They can see. Pretty straightforward. I think most of you have seen this. Community activity forms go back three years. And we were treated as personnel records are not. Sure. Distributed. The CAFs are not sure. Distributed. By counselors. So efficiency of the applicant pool. So I think it's pretty straightforward. Number of applicants relative to number of vacancies. Again. We seek diversity. As far as that is possible, given the applicant pool. We encourage our colleagues and anyone to reach out to them. Community and encourage people to apply. We assess the pool holistically in the context of needs and history of the committee. We do declare, as I said, the pool is sufficient to proceed. That's something we have to do. We do not disclose the total number of applicants to the public or stress. Yep. Why? I've noticed that in everything. And I'm curious, but why don't we let the public know how many applicants there are for something? I'm curiosity only here. Not a. I guess I don't know. It's Evan and someone who pushed for this very hard. And I probably would have to try to reconstruct his argument. It seemed convincing at the time. It's. I don't know. People have any thoughts on this one way or the other. It seems to please, you know. Mandy. Yeah, I was. Trying to think the same thing, Pat. And I wonder if some of it's a holdover from the prior process where the interviews were done in private. The very first OCO process. Versus the second one. I don't know that for a fact. The second one at some point, the number of applicants is actually disclosed because the interview, the ones who go to interview and who submit statement of interest, that number is clear because all of that shows up on a. On an agenda. And so the question becomes, if you've chosen not to finish the process. Do we disclose. How many essentially submitted a calf and then said, I don't want included. I think becomes the question. And. I guess I fall on if people have withdrawn themselves, then, then maybe we don't disclose that. Yeah, I guess the argument partly is that I'm sorry, Sarah. So I think one of the reasons why was trying to make sure that you could recruit people. And the idea was, is that if you. Maybe don't have a lot of formal training or if you're a minority. If you were thinking about applying and you knew ahead of time, that there was one space. And you knew that the 15 people had applied. You might just think. The other was. If the names were released ahead of time, two things could happen. One is the same thing. Is if you were not someone who was really well known or you're a minority or whatever. And you see John Q. Popular with the PhD has already applied. You might think, well, I don't have a snowball's chance and Hades and I'm not going to apply. The other was, was that if the names were. Public to begin with, then there's a chance that people could be sort of. Tried in a court of the public. Ahead of time. So for maybe two or three weeks before the interviews actually happened with us. Then bloggers and newspapers and. Social media. That feels like a different issue to me. The privacy issue. That feels. Why can't we say seven people applied. Two people applied. Not. I'm not going for it. I'm just saying what. Sarah, thank you. That is exactly. The point that was made. That I think Evan was actually referring to his own experience where. You know, he was a newbie. And if you had known ahead of time, you know, he might have been intimidated. So I think that is one of the reasons that was compelling. At least at one point. Was that it might discourage people who otherwise. Are thinking of applying. If they see that the number is, you know, X, Y, or C. On the other hand, you could argue that. And if you see the numbers one or two, you might think, oh, well, you know, maybe I should give it a shot. So we, I think that's one of the reasons that. I think the idea was just leave it open and try to encourage people to apply. And to use our own resources. To encourage people to apply, but. Giving out the number in advance and it changes. I think the other point was that it changes. You know, today it may be three tomorrow, maybe two, somebody may withdraw. Then it might be five. And so it doesn't really give an accurate idea. And then once we actually go to interviews, the number is public. The names of public. The number is public. The number is public. The number is public. The number is public. The number is public. The number is public. The number is public. The number is public. The number is public. The names are public. It's, it's that point. It's, it's a public process. That's helpful. Darcy. Thank you. Yeah. I don't want to take up too much time with this because we did spend a lot of time at it on it and OCA. And. You know, it's just a choice on the part of. Amherst that. You know, at the end of our. Our CAF form, there's a little check off box. That would be a personal record. It would be public. Have people. Or we could put a checkout box. If we chose to put that there. Where people could. Allow us to share their information that it would be. It wouldn't be a person. It wouldn't be a personnel record. It would be public. And. So that's what that's what North Hampton does. They, their, their process is completely open. And so. You know, the public can look at people's CAFs. And they know exactly how many people applied, et cetera, et cetera. So I argue that we should have that. That standard. Thank you. Okay. Now. Okay. Okay. This policy is obviously not written in stone. It can be changed by the committee at any time. But this is the policy we've been following up to date. That's why I want to go through it with you. So if someone wishes to change something, they basically need to make a motion to that effect. And we can discuss it and then decide. Selection guidance. I wanted to highlight this today because as we will see. When we're talking about a general policy for the council, each body has its own unique criteria. And so in this case, since we're talking about finance. We have a number of specific criteria that we apply to this body. So we are. Statedly, we're looking for applicants who have some experience serving on public finance or audit committee. Or training or expertise in economics, finance or policy, et cetera. Experience or interest in municipal finance. Consistently available for meetings. This is added by the chair. I thought it was a good addition because of the scheduling of this particular committee. It really hits overdrive in the months of May and June. And so it's important that any applicant understand that if they are going to be a member of this body, their May and June is going to be very full. So we felt that these four criteria were suitable for this committee and obviously would not be appropriate for other committees. So in addition, as you see, we look for a mix of experience, skills and perspectives, including knowledge beyond Amherst, particularly in this area of finance and so forth. In addition, the chair or the designee shall solicit from the chair of finance input as to whether there's any preferred knowledge or expertise that the committee requires to better assist in its work. So normally the chair or their designee would reach out to the chair of finance. I think the last time we did this, the chair of finance served on this committee. So that was not difficult to do, but at this point, and it's not difficult to do anyway, but this uses the term term limits, which perhaps could be revised or changed to simply reappointment. But again, generally if a person is serving a first or second term, they're given preference for another. Conversely, if a person is completing a third term and other qualified applicants preference would be given to a newcomer. So there's no fixed limit on length of service. The length of service is normally limited to three terms, two years in length. In cases where special training or expertise is required, longer pages of service may be appropriate. Statement of interest, I think this is pretty standard. We are pretty much stolen. I think word for word from CRC. And so here I think there's nothing, I mean, you can look through it if you wish, or if you have a question or concern, please raise your hand. But we found, and I think other committees have found that a statement of interest is extremely valuable document. And so we put a lot of emphasis on this and we solicit it. And if you don't complete it, I believe that removes you from the applicant pool. According to our selection guidance, you can miss or skip the interview, but you must submit an SOI. Okay. Interviews. All right. Now things get interesting. This committee felt that interviewing everyone together was not what they preferred. That could change. I understand. But we interviewed all the candidates sequentially one after the other. They were welcome to stay if they wished, but they were not all present in the chat room at the same time. We interviewed each one. And when we were done, we then proceeded to deliberation again, that doesn't have to be the policy, but that's what we did. We did not have questions submitted in advance. We did at that point, we actually did have the chair of finance survey on the committee. So we didn't have to, but normally we would invite the chair of finance. I believe invite them to attend. And we did not have written questions in advance. Each counselor or each member of the committee, excuse me was given one question and a follow-up. So we took a very different approach than was taken. In the OCA interview process. I personally felt the other committee members who were present can speak for themselves. But I found this to be a very effective and much more humane process. Rather than everybody in the room and each person answering the questions sequentially. We could have a more, I think real conversation back and forth. And committee members could ask questions. I think we could have a more, I think real conversation back and forth. And committee members could ask whatever question they wished. And they could ask a follow-up. And the chair was pretty lenient. But generally, interviews took about 15 minutes, 15 to 20 minutes max. And we tried. We had one interviewee who was just very chatty. And so that's always a challenge. You want to be rude. But on the other hand, we're trying to keep interviews within some kind of timeframe, just to be fair to everybody else and fair to the committee. Failure to attend an interview is not a reason for disqualification according to our guidance. If you do not wish to be interviewed or for some reason can't make the time. Though we would certainly arrange for another time. If we possibly could. So that is not a reason for disqualification. We also did the interviews during a regular scheduled meeting. We did not establish a special meeting. Again, that could be changed. But we found it worked perfectly reasonably. To ask people to be present. At a regular scheduled meeting up to L. If there was a problem, we, I'm sure we would have made it some kind of arrangement or adjustment. In fact, we were planning to do so if we had to. But we did not initially at least have that issue. So we did not declare a special meeting. Okay. And then the recommendation is just pretty much boilerplate. Okay. So any thoughts about that process? Again, I know this, this is also in the context of some larger questions that we're thinking about as a council and we'll come to later this, this morning. Sarah, your hand, go ahead. So this is a need for the discussion right now, but I guess I just wanted to say the things that I usually say, which is obviously. I prefer that all of the, I think interviews. If you're going to have them should be for everyone. And I think that like, the other thing that I think is important is like, I feel like any other part of the appointment process materials are important. If there's SOIs, SOI should be for everyone. I think that they should, all of the interview should be together at the same time for the fact that you want to have people have a equal. You could be a person who has an interview early in the morning, it could be in the summer, air conditioning is working, things are quiet. Again, this is when we're in session, right, because Zoom makes it different, or it could be that the, you know, everybody's internet connection is fabulous and everybody's really awake. And you have just perfect time for your interview and you're right on the money. Somebody else could be during a stormy day, the internet's bad, it's a hot day, they have no air conditioning and someone keeps coming in and out of the room and disrupting them. So, I think that all of the interviews need to be done at the same time, just so there's a level playing field. I object to the chair being at the interviews, I think the chair, the chair is given an opportunity to say what they feel like they want. So they've had a say in it. Usually I mean I would think that we send handouts like we did with the OCA process that has a lot of information about the committee there. But I don't think it's fair to have someone who's basically going to be your boss in this setting to be at the interviews I, I, I disagree with that. I'm trying to think if there's anything else that I think is. So just the same stuff that I usually say. Thank you so interview should not be optional. You want all the interviewees to be present together at the same meeting and interviewed. Basically, as it was done with planning board, originally by OCA, a mass interview, basically. And you do not want the chair finance present. All right. I just want to give a little background. I think one of the reasons we said they didn't have to be mandatory. There were a couple, one of which is their non voting members. So we, we took the non voting membership and the difference that that might have compared to a CR to the planning board or ZBA membership into account when we were setting this. The other one was, we decided to do them during a regular GL meeting, which we recognize as a time that not everyone can actually make it's not the time that finance meets. And so, I think part of the non requirement was to take that into consideration is when that that we did not say we were going to hold a special meeting at a different time, and all of that that that all the other processes do say. That's not to say it's good or bad, but that's a little bit of the history as to why that portion of this interview process was put in. Yeah, I, I was on the last interviewing and I remember that after Matt Halloway's interview he stayed on. And actually that made me uncomfortable. I ended up he ended up contacting me afterwards and we had some good conversations and everything, because he wanted to flesh out some of his response to one of my questions. But I feel like all the interviews should happen at the same time. And the people should be seeing each other. I think because that felt to me. It seemed like unfair that he got to see. I mean, it was his choice I understand that to stay on and therefore he got to see who he was competing with, but the other people didn't. And so I would like to see them happen simultaneously. And all of them respond to the same question but I would like there to be room for individual follow up questions. If you wanted to get clarification or something from one of the applicants. You would like the questions to be known in advance. Not by candidate, but by us. So we would have to decide what the questions are going to be in advance amongst each other, and only those questions could be asked. I guess with some kind of flexibility around the follow up so if I were interviewing you and Sarah and Darcy, and I was confused by something I might be able I could ask clarification of Sarah or something like that. Could you ask, could you help me understand why you think the questions need to be decided on in advance because the idea that everyone's answering basically the same question so apples to apples that kind of thing. Yeah, yeah, I mean I think when you're in a situation where we kind of did ask the same questions but there were changes based on what information we had received through the SOIs and things, which we read anyway. So, I just remember. Just thinking you read an SOI you might think I want to have something specific about your SOI, but that has to be determined according to what you're proposing. I have to determine that question in advance and everybody agreed to it, as opposed to okay I've read your SOI Smith, and you say X, and I just wanted to ask you about that. You're okay with that but it would have to be cleared by the whole committee in advance, as opposed to simply at the meeting about that. All right. And I'm wondering if what I would play with in my mind is the same kind of interview where we had with individual people but happening simultaneously because basically the questions did say stay the same there weren't a lot of communication, but with some flexibility for that. I don't know I'll play with it in my head. Thank you. Sarah and then Mandy Sarah. I think that actually Mandy might have had her hand up before me if she wants to go first. All right, well, I didn't either one, whatever. Yeah, I would just respond with, if we decide them in advance at a meeting, I, you know, and these are the questions that will be asked then I think we need to distribute them to the candidates. I'm knowing that that is always not as fruitful of an interview as asking them without preparation, seeing how both have worked but if they're decided in an open meeting then only though you know without distributing then only those candidates that know to look at that meeting, you know, you could give some potential advantage to those that are in the know versus those that are not if you don't then distribute them. I think I am for not deciding the questions I have liked that each of us has been able to in the past come in with our questions based on the SOI. But maybe we go with, you know, I think I'd be open to each committee member asks the same question of all the candidates maybe but not run it by the committee beforehand and do all of that prep. I'd be fine with that helps if you unmute yourself so I, I realize that it may seem problematic to have questions done ahead of time and distributed to candidates. And I understand that you know some people might want follow up just because they think I'm just looking for more clarity, you know I'm looking for something in a candidate and I'm simply looking for more clarity. I see the potential so if I see the potential to be able to ask questions that could lead a candidate to revealing certain, I'm going to say biases because I'm not sure how else I can say it in their interview. It might not matter so much as a non voting member of finance committee, but I think all of us have explored the fact, you know, that it's possible, you know, some counselors more than others or everybody at the same time because we're all human right that we might be trying to further. I don't know I'm going to use agenda but I don't mean it in a negative way. They were trying to further a bigger idea or the things we would like to have happen. And I'm not making any judgment on that because I think it's human beings even not just, you know, elected officials that's natural. But I have seen in my experience that when you talk about questions with counselors ahead of time that there is a temptation for some counselors to want to ask very pointed questions and pointed follow up questions about hot topic things right so say you wanted to build an alien ship in the middle of the common. I might ask someone like hey, you know some questions about how do you feel about alien ships. You know I just, I just, you know, I think it's just a normal tendency right but I think that there's a danger there so I see what people are thinking about they want authenticity, because somebody could just you know cheat off somebody else's answer or give an answer they think is the right one. But I'm leery about that so that's, that's why I would advocate to have all of the questions be the same, we can discuss them and I, I would rather not have follow up questions. Okay, I want to bring this to a close and move on, but we'll come back to this obviously we will have to establish our guidance and our criteria for interviews at some point. We still can go ahead and do the notice will decide that hopefully before today is done. Thank you to the people of the selection guidance and this committee this is these are non voting members of a finance committee that is filled by five counselors in the chair as a counselor of that committee. So, please keep that in mind. And that we're looking for some fairly specific things. The committee is a great person and they answer questions really well and they can talk and laugh and tell great stories, but they don't have any background or experience related to finance whatsoever. That's a very serious concern. So, we're looking for people who have, you know, some, and we do have right now three people that that have experience and I think this is important so. I think my thought is for consideration. We talk about somebody having the advantage. Imagine you're the third person or the fourth person that mentioned also imagine you have seven people. Right. So this question gets asked seven times or you know, it's just, we've seen this in action it's not a pretty particular site, and particularly with this committee. And what we're looking for. I like to see how people think on their feet. I like to see how they think without having heard for other people answer the question. And that's what we're going to have. And I really think that's a terrible way to do an interview. Talk about having an advantage. I mean, you all know what it's like in the console, when you know, or, you know, the recent training we had, it was always nice to be the fourth or fifth or sixth person. So you could gather your thoughts, and you could also see, you know, could read the room. And that's just human. So I really prefer to have an interview that, you know, the, it's you and the committee. And they answer the question, whether they know it in advance or not. Again, I'm not really keen on that, but it's them answering the question and not them answering the question after they've seen four other people answer the question. So I have real concerns about that. And I think it's worked very well the way we did it in the past, but so we'll come back to this we're not going to settle it today. But Pat, your hand is up. Yeah, I just want to go back a little just very briefly to that they can watch if they want to the other interviews. That's that doesn't seem. I don't know. I mean, the third person, I guess they could come on and watch the interviews, but that part feels odd to me. It felt really weird to have him watching us. I mean, we create a range of process where the individual is brought into the room, and can only be present during their actual interviews and then they're taken out. Mandy. No, we can't because it's an open meeting and a public meeting we can't. Okay, in the meeting. But if you are allowed to change questions beforehand between candidates then what they heard us ask one candidate even if they watch that might not be what they're actually asked. Right, right. I mean, again, I prefer questions be basically this intelligent group of people. We, and that's why I like having the chair present, because they bring their experience and knowledge to it as well. So anyway, this is something is not going to be easy to settle. We will settle it hopefully next time, or sometimes soon. I'm going to stop sharing this. And I'm going to put this away for the moment. And db process I want to go to item number three. And I think what I want to start with here is the draft vacancy notice. So I'm going to put that up on the screen there with me. I need your advice and your counsel on this. And this was an attempt by yours truly to construct something. Because we're going to need to do this quickly. So let's take a look at you've not seen this before. I apologize. I just worked on it last night. So I basically use the model for finance. Town Council accepting applications for districting advisory board is the title. And that's the title we use for finance. So the same. And this is section 7.4 the Amherst homeroom charter town council is now accepting applications for residents who wish to serve on a districting advisory board. The DAB is a multiple member body appointed by the town council every 10 years upon receipt of the final results of the decennial federal census it is composed of nine voting members who must be residents of the town. And three non voting members the town clerk and member of the board of registrars and a member of it staff. At least one of the voting members must come from each of the existing five districts and no more than two from any existing district. The term of service is one year. So this is essentially taken from the charge sheet. This is also basically taken from the charge sheet. The purpose of DAB is to review the existing voting districts and propose changes, if necessary, to such districts to ensure the uniformity and number of inhabitants and conformity with state and federal law. And Mandy, go ahead. They also have to conform with our charter which is local law so I don't know whether we want to add with local state and federal law. They're conformity with local state and federal law. Yeah. Let me do something here. This is. Thank you. Sarah. I've been reading the section 54 and so even when we use wards or districts. There still are precincts that have to be drawn up. So I'm just wondering and I realize that, you know, it might not be be so much for, you know, how we do things locally. But still I'm wondering if precincts aren't still useful in some way and I realize they may change right as redistricting is done. Those precincts may change. But I'm, I guess, I'm wondering if we still shouldn't use precincts in some way either to. I don't know, make it clear that they're still part of determining polling places and or if they're still important as far as trying to draw people from precincts. My feeling is that this comes from the charge sheet. And I'm not. And I don't think precincts are mentioned there. I may be wrong, but if they are then I guess that we could use that language but I think the language is districts, Mandy. So precincts get voting precincts. And I think that's what we have to turn our memory to and our minds to referring to them as they're not precincts in the sense of town meeting precincts they are voting precincts, and they are only drawn after the districts are divided. So they're not determined before those five districts are divided are determined and they don't have any say you know they don't have any influence in the division into five districts what they have is once those districts are decided under state law. If those districts have more than 4000 people in them. They're only divided into voting precincts, but the voting precinct is really just for a polling location and to shorten lines it's not, it's not determinative of a representative. Like, they're drawn by the DAB or they're drawn by the DAB but they're only drawn after the districts are and and unlike in town meeting where there were 10 precincts and each precinct got representatives on the legislative body. In our now city form of government only the districts get representatives in the legislative body there is no guarantee that if this district is divided into three voting precincts and frankly it could be divided at some point into three voting precincts that the two district counselors have to come from separate voting precincts. They don't. So it really is a district based voting system, and the only reason you're splitting that up is to shorten voting lines. So I don't think that Sarah this would be appropriate in this document that they will be dealing with it but in a very different way than they're dealing with districts and they'll sort that out and that's going to be their headache. But here we're just trying to inform people as to their task in terms of creating districts that are of generally equal population and etc. Pat. Yeah, I'm fine with not including precincts in this. I'm not comfortable with the notion that a precinct doesn't in it within a district doesn't get a representative my maybe because my district is the whole East almost the whole eastern half of Amherst and the range of it would be a hell of a shame if both counselors came from a flat Hills Road and didn't come from somebody didn't come from strong street or so I'm really and that's a discussion for a later time but I think that there is it's dramatic to say that if there are will stick with our five districts, there are 10 precincts for voting, and I really feel like that we should continue to have representatives by precinct within a district. So we don't on the council. George and earthy are in the same voting. I know, and that look at the problems we get out of that. No, exactly. My reason you're electing by district now it's a different form of government. It's what the Charter Commission proposed and it's what the people of this town adopted. I understand that but I'm just saying what my preferences. I hear you pat and I and I think we can change charters someday. Exactly for the change the Charter of meeting, but here again, the time. People are okay with this as it's written because I was then going to have a link. I'm not able to do that yet, because the charge is still not been reviewed by the legal person and the clerk is on vacation. It's just life right. So if I had that I but anyway I was going to put a link to the committee charge here so someone wanted to see if they could, but I don't have any other link that I think I want to. I have one more thing. Yep. And this says that the multiple member body is appointed upon receipt of the final results of the census. We have to appoint them particularly this time in advance don't we I don't. It seems a little. The upon here is supposed to go with every 10 years. In other words, but yeah, every 10 years upon receipt of the final results. So if you don't have the final results you can't appoint anybody. That's correct we can't. Yeah, but that doesn't make any sense since the committee. Before. Exactly. Okay. So can we reword this in multiple member body point of a 10 cuts every 10 years. To, to something the. Any anticipation of. Yeah, thank you. So in anticipation of the final results. Yeah. In anticipation. Receiving. So we could just say multiple member body appointed by the town council get rid of the every 10 years, which came from the charter. And just say in anticipation of receiving the final results of the decennial census. Changing the charter, Maddie. Okay, I'm why are you taking out every 10 years, but I do want people to understand. And this is fine, but it just wants to understand this is a very unusual body that only is, you know, something we take, we deal with it accounts with deals with every 10 years. Yeah, for this advertisement, we get rid of the every 10 years. Okay. It stays in the charge. Right. Okay. All right, fair enough. All right. Any further hand I see Sarah. I'm just wondering, is there so. Um, is it state law that we do it after, and if so, should we not change that language or should we make it clear that this is a one off. But the, the, the regular language stays. I'm just curious. So the charter says every 10 years comma upon receipt of the final results of the decennial federal census comma the town council shall appoint a district advisory board composed of blah, blah, blah. So that doesn't mean I mean we could leave it that way what that means is we set the appointment date as the date we receive the final census numbers if we're concerned about that. That doesn't mean we can't go through the process beforehand. Because we said an effective date for appointment. I mean, they have work to do. Yeah, no we definitely need to get this started. And we're going to get to it in a moment is the issue of interviews. Imagine nine people, and we're hoping to have a sizable number of applicants. Are we going to interview, I mean we'll come to this moment we're going to view all 3040 people. So give that some thought. It's not going to be nine people. It's going to be a lot of people. And we would choose. So, maybe we will. But right now I just need to get the word out. And so I think this is, there's a problem with the wording in terms of just misleading or confusing the public. We don't don't want to mistake the facts, but we do need to get this out. This is something I would like to get out as soon as possible. Go back to the wording that was there, because it tracks the charter, but you know we could add a sentence that says, we're starting the process in anticipation of receiving them so that the effective date of the appointments will be. You know, we could do something like that. I think this is fine. The charter, the charges the charge. Yeah, we're not going to know the effective date. We don't even have the charge yet so I can't put this up unless we want to take this out. We could just remove this for more information on the DAB. We could just remove it. But at the moment with if we have it in, I can't put it up because they don't have the charge officially. Okay, and maybe we should wait for that. I think before we put any kind of public notice that we should make sure the state is happy with what we've done. I would leave the language as it is, but I'm. And then the rest is just see it now. Here's another issue the CAF is actually, this is the link to the town council CAF as it exists at the moment it does not include this body. We could change that or we could just say the hell with it and just, you know, as long as they fill out a CAF, but I think they have to click off DAB. So we're going to have to change it Mandy. I think you just talk to whoever maintains the form and say please add a DAB. Right. Box check off. Yeah. Okay. I think that's right. And would that be. I don't know if seen us paying attention at this point that would that be that be Brianna. I'm here. I'm sorry, would that be Brianna? Who would I, who would I talk for DAB box? Yes, Brianna. Thank you. And then I'm telling people to reach out to me if they have questions so I can confuse them. And then town council appointments. According to the, yeah, this is just boilerplate taken from the finance charge. So it's not 2.6 E at 7.4. So according to the same so 2.6 E refers to finance is that right. I don't even have it. Um, standing or ad hoc committees, it's, it's not relevant at all. So. For section 7.4. Which are all right. And we are fulfilling the town board requirement 912 E. Is that true? Yep. All right. Yeah. Yep. Okay. And then this is just a link to the, the, the charter. Right. So if they actually want to read 7.4 or 912 E, they can. All right, so I'm going to buy consensus. This is acceptable. It will not go up until we get the charge reviewed. And it sounds like you think a link to the charge would be appropriate. So I would create that. Then I would send this to. To Athena, I guess, and have it posted publicly. And this has to be up for at least 14 days before we can begin any kind of. Interview process. So. All right. Very quickly. I want to. Go look at it. I don't know. Let's just look at this quickly. I'm not worried so much about the dates on this. I'm not actually worried about the dates on this. But I want to make sure that we're all on the same page. As to the process and where we are right now. So we have created a draft charge. We have have sent it out for legal review. Everyone can see this, correct? We are trying today to create a process and timeline for recruiting interviewing and recommending appointees to DAB. We made a little progress today, but not a lot. That's today. I don't think we'll be able to report to the council with any completed anything by May 3rd, but that was what I was dreaming. I still have not gotten back information from Paul or the town clerk as to these, these dates. I don't know. I believe someone had communicated to a member of this committee or maybe to Athena. Another date like September 8th. I'm not sure where that number came that they came from. So there's some confusion. Still about these dates. But the basic just give us some thought and we'll come back to it. Eventually I will post the public notice that we just reviewed. And then solicit, ask people to submit CAFs. There will be a check box for the DAB. At some point. And obviously I think we'd be urging our colleagues and everyone we know to encourage people to consider applying. Because we're going to need a broad representation amongst the five districts. At some point we will need at least nine. Probably a lot more than nine. And members of the pool. And our normal process would be to declare the pool is efficient. And then a really difficult question, at least in my mind. Do we really want to interview these people? Or do we want to simply rely on SOIs? If we do interviews and we're talking 30, 40 people. We will have to have special meetings. I don't think we could do them all one meeting. I do not think it would make sense to interview 40 people at once. There's a whole host of questions that we're going to have to deal with. We're not going to do that today. But people need to start thinking about it. How we're going to manage this. Just as a process. Because I think given what this body is asking. We're going to need a number of lots of applicants. Just to get two from each district or at least one from five. And then no more than two. Any quick thoughts on interviews? Do you really think that you want to interview. 40 people? And if you do, how do you manage, want to manage that? I just have a quick question, which may be a dumb one. What, what, what's the legal authority for our having jurisdiction over the interviews and the appointment process for this? You mean GOL? Yeah. I think it was just referred to us. I mean, I'd be happy to give it to CRC or to TSO or to. I don't think anybody would like, but it was sent to us as governance organization legislation. It seemed like an appropriate task for GOL. And I believe referred to us by the council. Right. But what was referred to us? The job for the. I mean, I guess I've just never seen anywhere the authority for. I mean, we have the authority for appointing the finance committee, but I'm not sure where it is. I'm not sure where it is. You know, so what was referred to GOL was to recommend a charge and a process for recommending appointments. So that process. Could include which committee would go through the process. I think we're just operating under the assumption that it will be GOL based on GOL's current charge. Obviously the notice, the public notice would change depending on whether or when the council adopts the charge, whether they change. What, who they designate to be the recommending body. And I just want to correct Darcy. GOL does not appoint finance committee residents. Members we recommend to the council. Right. And that's in our charge, right? So do we need to. Finance it is. For we need to change our charge and have the council. Adopt the amendment. Right. To allow us. Why? Well, we certainly can take this up as a referral within the general context of what GOL is. But if we are actually officially appointed to do this, to do this process. That's a fair question, I guess. Whether that then has to be added to our charge. But at the moment. As many points out, it's not clear who's going to do, you know, we're going to recommend someone to do this process. But the council will decide who it's going to be. And we'll probably recommend GOL. And if we do that, we probably would recommend. Adjusting our charge. But that's down the road. Right now we do have the job. And it's a very difficult, a challenging one. Of coming up with a process and a charge. I think we've got the charge now. But we need a process. And part of that is going to be what we're going to recommend about interviews. Whoever has to do this. Do you want to recommend. That they interview everybody in person. Do you want to recommend this process? Do you want to recommend this process? Do you want to recommend that they interview everybody in person? Do you want to recommend that they interview everybody all at once? Do you want to recommend that there be questions to sign up in advance, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And if the answer is yes, fine, we'll send that to the council. Sarah. So I'm just thinking that this can't be the first time that, you know, I realized that this has been done. And I realized it's all different forms of government, right? Right. You may or send city councils and select boards, but we probably could look a little bit at how other things are done. It might give us some guidance. Doesn't mean we have to do it that way. But. I mean, I do we have time for all of us to kind of look at where it's been done other places and where, how it was done here and see if we can find sort of a streamlined. Process. Would that be helpful? Yeah. Given all the other things we have to do, I'm not sure that, that. I think certainly be interesting to find out how we've done 10 years ago. Yeah. And I think Arlene to Rizzi might be some person I could reach out to. Certainly Alyssa. And Andy would have some insights. Perhaps the SUA debt was perhaps around 10 years ago. I believe she was. She's been here at least, I think, 14 years, I believe. And I think that's a good idea. I think that if we were to go to our council and maybe a member of the League of Women's voters, I could just do, you know, reach out and say, can you talk, tell us a little bit about what the process was 10 years ago. But there's only some, we really have time pressures here. No, I was just thinking that maybe. That's a good idea. Might be like, Oh, we did this. And then you'll all be like, oh, so much easier. Or, you know, it might just give us. Sort of an idea. I think out loud. I mean, let's say we, let's just look at, you know, we literally look at whether they, where they live and, you know, just, are we going to ask them for an SOI? And it's an open question. I mean, we found those to be useful just to get a measure of somebody. We could just rely on SOIs and rely on their address. And, you know, and. Whether this committee does it or some other committee, I think we have to give them some sort of direction as to what we think is the procedure or process to follow. And that's hard for me to think of right away because I mean, if we don't, if we, I mean, I understand what you're saying about the headache of interviews. I can see using SOIs, but it's the same. If we don't use any criteria, we might as well just put all of their names in a hat for each district, shake it up and have one of us pull it out. I guess that's what I'm thinking. No, right. That is a process we could recommend. Yeah. But it would make things in some ways easier. And maybe it's as good as any, but that's Mandy. I'm sorry. Maybe what we can do since we're going to be running short on time today is for next meeting, assign everyone the job of coming up with their own thoughts on interviews and SOIs. Most of the rest of the process and even selection guidance. Most of the rest of the process. For each committee that has adopted processes regarding the selection guidance, the selection guidance is nearly identical. It's those three sections that tend to be different. The SOI section is actually not very different at all. I don't think between the two committees that do it now. It's selection guidance and it's interviews. And so if each of us comes to the next meeting with our thoughts on that and potential. Writing in writing of proposals, we can then actually have a fruitful discussion as to where we need to go. I think that makes good sense. And again, there is time pressure here. So we really do need to put our minds to this collectively. Okay. Any other. So again, this is in the packet. And don't worry about the dates that they just write, but it does give us a sense of the time pressures. And that this is something we need to move on quickly. But probably not by May 3. All right. I would like to. Bring in. Hang on for a second. Calender. Just let me look at this very quick. By the way. Yes. Thank you, Darcy. I see that. And I will try to make this move very quickly. I want to look just for a moment at the. Let's see if I can make this a little bigger. 100% was drawn in 25%. Bigger. Okay. So this is not very easy to read. I just want to show this to you and ask you to look at it. Unless people have some comments specifically now again, I know you've got a lot in your plates, but. If I'm still looking for sponsors for some of these. For instance, a lot of the answer might be. To the CPA officer. I don't know. So. It could be Jen. It could be a particular body, but what I'm trying to do is create. A calendar that gives when the. Proclamation. The date. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Like history month is all month. Okay. Obviously specific day in January. I'm Chinese new year. At least this year was eight February. When it was reviewed by GOL and who the sponsors are for future chairs of GOL, whoever they may be that they will know who to reach out to. And. So that's what I've created. And if people have a chance to look at this either right now, or in the past, or if you're going to be doing that. That's out the station heritage month. There was some email chatter about. Where is race, and we have a proclamation for that. But, and I have actually I have it held in advance because we just have so much to do. Also point out race and many days in June. And this is April. So I'm holding onto that. I just don't see the rush here. Again, I need a sponsor. So that's where this is at at the moment. And hopefully in the end, I will fill it out and they'll be preserved for posterity. George, Jen Moistens and the attendees, can I bring her in? Yeah, would you bring her in? Thank you, that would be great. Thank you. And Mandy, while Jen is coming in, you have a thought. Yeah, I just had a, I don't know whether we could add a column or change G to recommended date for GOL to review. Because, you know, to bet day on March 10th, we might not be able to review it as late as March 3rd in a normal year. So could we change that column to when the chair recommends GOL review that by in order to guarantee that it's in front of the council before March 10th, you know, things like that. Exactly. So you're right, Mandy, that really the actual date, historical date is really irrelevant. It's really ideally what, by what point should this be reviewed by GOL? Yeah. I can make that change. I think that makes sense. Okay. Jen, I don't know if you're in yet. Yes, I'm here. Hi, good morning. Hello everyone. Hi. This is something I will share with you after the meeting is over and it's a proclamations calendar, hopefully in some kind of form that is useful to not only us right now, but to future bodies like GOL in the future. What I've tried to do is list the proclamation, the date of that particular proclamation and then we're gonna change this to the date by which it should be reviewed by GOL. And then finally sponsor or sponsors in a sense that if someone say the chair of GOL just wants to check up on something in advance, they know who to reach out to. This is something, Jen, we could do offline because I think you would be able to fill this out with me for like MLK Day, Black History Month, but in Tibet Day right now I have Mr. Dunn up. Maybe it all goes through, I don't know. So we'd like to fill that out at some point. I did mention the Race Amity Day, I do have a draft of that proclamation, but it's the second Sunday in June. So normally I would figure that would be reviewed sometime in mid-May or late May by Austin and Center for Counsel. Yeah, go ahead. Can you scroll back up? So I just wanna make sure I'm not repeating what Mandy just said. So I'm thinking that there should be a submit by date. And I don't know if that, and I think Mandy had said the date that it has to be, which could be considered the same things. Exactly, submit by date would be the date by which we would be reviewing it at that meeting, yes. That's just helpful for A, myself and other community members that don't usually submit proclamations, although Angela and I are always here to help folks do that. And I think that's all I really wanted to say about that. I didn't know when a good time was to talk about, it's not Southeast Asian Heritage Month, it's Asian American Pacific Islander Month. Okay, so it's Asian, share with me, Asian American Pacific Islander Heritage Month. Thank you. Pacific Islander Heritage Month. Really? Thank you. So I probably five minutes before you went into this meeting submitted to you at the very, very last minute of possible time of proclamation, in which I understand that it won't make the timeframe that's needed for this meeting, but in the hopes that you can do the first one. So the only thing that would really need to be changed are the dates and the date that I'm doing the event that's at the bottom of the proclamation. The rest of the context could stay. And so what you submitted, Jen, is the Asian American Pacific Islander Heritage Month Proclamation? Yes. Okay, and so the next time that we're going to be able to look at that is May 5th. Yes. Now, we do have the authority, well, we haven't practiced in the past, done these out of cycle and the chair looks at them, but normally it would be, so the actual date is, it is all month. Next time we would see it would be May 5th. Is that acceptable? Could you, I mean, that means and the next council meeting is, anyone? The 17th. 17th, so halfway through the month. Right, so I would do the, yeah, we have a May 3rd council meeting. I would do the events the week of the 17th after it's been approved by the town council. What if we tried to put it on the May 3rd agenda and just forwent this time around the formal GOL review? That would be fantastic. And then I would just have the event on the 17th itself because I don't want to go too far into the month. I think doing it in the middle of the month is a good time. Okay, okay. So the events will still be in the middle of the month, but it would be nice to have the notice off at the beginning of the month for the entire month as we've been, and we'll talk about that in a moment. And this is the first one, which was why it was so hard to, I had to kind of, it's the first one that time it's ever been done, but the Juneteenth one, I also submitted as well. Okay, okay, right. I now have Juneteenth and I have, I'll raise the amity day, but we're okay with that in terms of timeline. That's not an issue. What are your thoughts, colleagues, about this? Mandy? I just want to just suggest maybe three columns. A submit to GOL by a GOL here by, and the GOL here by could be first meeting of May, second meeting of May, or May 1, May 15 or something like that. And then a council consider or council meeting heard at or something, which is first council meeting of the month and second count, you know, first meeting or second meeting of whatever month. And then you can work back from, you know, the say Asian American Pacific Islander Heritage Month should really be considered at the council meeting in mid, the second April council meeting, which would then pop to the first probably GOL meeting in April, which means it needs submitted by April one, say something like that. Okay, so you'd like a submit by date to GOL then a hearing date by GOL and then a hearing date by our voting date by council. Yeah. Okay, all right. Darcy. Yeah, I just want, I would think that it would be helpful to have a column of most recent proclamation that was the annual previous proclamation, a link to it so that we would have a record of. Okay. Previous proclamations that were the same. So link to latest, latest version. Right. Right, no, yeah. This is well, I mean, my daughter is back from Hawaii so maybe I can hire her to help me with this, but these are good suggestions and I'll work on them. Let's focus for just a moment on the Southeast, just give you the South, the Asian American Pacific Islander Heritage Month. It is a new proclamation. Are you comfortable with the chair and or maybe one of the members of this committee looking at this and giving it the GOL treatment and then sending it to, okay, I see a lot of nodding heads. And so this is not a normal procedure for the public to know, but with your permission, I will do that. And I will probably, if it's okay with you, I will also dragoon councilor Hanakie into this because she has an extremely keen eye and also has been doing this a very long time. So if the two of us may look at this and then make our suggested edits, we'll consult with the sponsor, which at the moment I believe is Jen, is there, right? Good, we'll consult with her and we will ask the council president to put it on the agenda for May 3. And that's great. And I have a copy of it because Jen has just sent us one. So we will mainly, I will get on that in advance of the meeting of May 3rd and we will do that. Okay, and I will work on this and bring you another iteration of it soon. I'm not sure how soon, but soon with some additional columns. Jen, the final question for you and it doesn't have to be answered right now. And maybe when we talk later, I would like, I don't want to have to put your name down for many sponsors, right? But that may be the answer. It's nice to have the actual community sponsors. It's the Human Rights Commission or some particular community group. But at some point, I'd like to fill this column out and I will turn to you for advice and help on that. Yeah, if they're not HRC, then we can just put the town manager's office. I mean, that's the simplest, okay? That's a good represent. And there is no group associated with this. This is again coming through basically the town manager's office in your work as the community participation office. Okay, well, it's just great. Dude, this is great work, really is. Thank you. We're the outreach committee and we actually, part of our charge is working with you. So this is actually what we are supposed to be. I take that back actually. That's TSO, Darcy. Yeah, that is. We're doing TSO's work. Oh well, thank you, Jen. Thank you very much for this. Anything else, Jen, you had to bring up or? No, I just wanted to say thank you so much for moving that forward. And thanks for all the hard work and let me know if I can help with your spreadsheet. I wanna say thank you to Jennifer because the amount of work that you have been doing in your regular position and also your work on the community safety working group and everything that you do for this town, I am blown away and I value you greatly. We are very lucky. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Bye. All right, so I'm gonna close that thing. Whoops, it's not happy. Okay, so I'm gonna just close you. All right, final, very quickly. Town council clerk where is fate of proclamations? This is just a bunch of, okay. I just wanna touch base with Athena on this just to make sure I understand and the committee understands. This was a council brewers email from many moons ago now. Athena, when say we send you the South Asian, right? When that comes to you from the council, council votes it says great. So what happens? So once the council votes it, I send it to Lynn for her signature. Then I post it to the council webpage. There's a link on the main council page to resolutions, proclamations, commemorations and so forth. So it lives in there. And then I do a follow up email after every council meeting. And so our new practice has been to, that I would copy Brianna on the email saying that the proclamation or resolution is signed and posted and it's ready for that news and announcement item. And then Brianna takes it from there. Does the announcement includes any information about an event happening related to that? What about timeline, length of time it's up? That sort of thing, yeah. I think that Brianna has probably used her judgment. I haven't given her specific instructions about that. But obviously she can see when the date of an event is and if it's a month long event. So I think I've just been kind of trusting that she's good judgment. But if we want to include more specific directions about how long things should be posted or if it's just a one day or a week, they're all a little different. So if we want to give more specific instructions then I can include that. And that's something I think this committee not necessarily today, but at some point needs to wrap its mind around. Pat. Yeah, thank you. I've been thinking a lot about what happens to a proclamation after it goes through the council. So it's a little bit off from this, but it seems to me that not being able to read the full proclamation, et cetera, in the council kind of diminishes. And I was wondering whether or not in the council, when we make a proclamation or even a resolution that we read the now therefore, or make a very brief statement about the issue, very brief and then read the now therefore, so I guess I'm basically suggesting that we add that somehow to this process. I mean, the now therefore on the Goodwin Memorial Church is now therefore we the Amherstown Council express our appreciation for the Goodwin Memorial AME Zion congregation and its vital roles in contributing to the diversity, history and cultural heritage, blah, blah, blah. It's a very short statement, but it would be I think respectful and worthy of being read in the council. And but also, I mean, when we deal with sponsors at GOL and we go through the process, they're very appreciative of that. I think we've seen that a number of times. We can also say that this and not only will it be on the agenda, but it will be at least the substance of it will be publicly acknowledged at the meeting so that if they are present, they will hear it and it's also preserved as opposed to what is the current practice, understandable for reasons of time where essentially it's on the consent agenda and it's just like the minutes, it's just checked off. And that seems, I agree with Pat, that seems I understand the pressures of time, understand very real concerns about how long our meetings are, but this is a really important performative aspect of our job. And I think we need to press hard to have some kind of public acknowledgement, however brief for these kinds of proclamations if we're going to do them. Nandy. I like the idea of reading the now there for clause. I think it's a good compromise from the whole thing some of which can go two, three pages long and the need for recognition. And that could always be done right after the consent agenda so that it's formally passed at the time it's read. I can share this with the council president. The geo chair would be happy to do that as part of his job, but it could be done by the unit for instance, Pat could volunteer or an counselor, a counselor sponsor or one of the sponsors for that particular could be asked or assigned to read that particular passage. I think that would be a nice way to do it. I think none of us are on the agenda setting body at the moment. So I think it's just Evan. So I guess what I would say is I'd reach out to the council president. Does she have the power just sort of by, I assume she does to do this on her own. She doesn't need to raise it as a question. I have no idea the answer. I'll raise it with her and see what she says. I think it's just part of the announcements that she decided when I will raise it I will raise it with her and ask her by getting a consensus. Can I, is it fair to say a consensus of the committee would like to see something like this done? Pat would Darcy would. Okay. I agree, I agree. I would say that's a good suggestion. Pat, thank you. Yeah, okay. I'll carry that out with the president. All right, thank you. All right, get you away. All right, we have, and I think here we need to make some just general decisions about how we want to proceed. It is almost noon. We still have 35 minutes. We do have something we need to do under new business. I can give this about 25 minutes at least. And at that point then we decide how we want to proceed. This meaning item number six. Six. And we have documents in the packet that have been submitted by a member of the committee. And let's, I guess I'm going to look for advice from the, from Darcy here as to how she would like to proceed. Does she want to put up on the screen the red line version? Does she want to put up the memo? Or does she want to just speak first? The memo first. Okay. And could we bring Kathy in? I think she's in the. Kathy is. Okay. Was in the attendees. I don't, I think she probably still is. Is she contributed to the memo? She may have contributed, but it was not assigned to a group. And we as a committee haven't had a discussion yet on it. So I'd be concerned about, you know, nothing against fellow councilor, but I'm just concerned that we'd be privileging one counselor over many, if we did that. And since the other two of you are here, it feels like not necessary, but. So maybe you're looking for just a sort of general sense from the committee as a whole as to how we want to proceed before we start. Going into this. I'm happy to leave. There too. I'm not kicking you out yet. But we think we're just trying to figure out how we want to proceed on this. Yeah. I guess I'm concerned about giving non-GOL counselors. Certain non-GOL counselors preference over others on discussions during GOL when this was referred to. Well, this is not a quorum of the council and any counselor could join a meeting. If we're. No, but our counselors are treated. If we, if I go to TSO, I'm treated as a member of the public. If you bring counselor in, you're no longer treating them as a member of the public. And you didn't offer that to any other counselor. And I think that's wrong. I think that. They can join as, um, As a presenter as. I recall from Athena. They can join as one of the presenters. If they so choose. Yeah. I guess my question is. This was not a while. I recognize there's a proposal from three counselors. What was referred to GOL was to develop a policy. Um, and we as a count committee, haven't even talked about what that would look like. Yeah, I think. I really want this committee to wrestle with this first before we, and just figure out what we want to do. Um, and maybe answer may be. Then to invite other counselors or other people to come and make presentations. Um, what right now we have is a. Document. Um, put forward by a member of the committee for the committee's review and discussion. Um, I also feel I think that Kathy is one of the people who helped do this. So she is a presenter, even though, I mean, I. We don't keep other counselors out. You know, when they're presenting. The last time we talked about, um, Child Abuse. Dorothy Pam. Was in the audience and we brought her in. Um, Because she was. And so I, while I hear what you're saying, Mandy Joe and my first impulse was saying no Kathy. I think as a. One of the people who's. Presenting this, she should be allowed in. I don't think she should be able to speak unless she's called upon, but that's normal process. Well, she's really can listen in. I'm reluctant at this stage to have a back and forth. Um, until we, as a committee, decide what we want to do and what the heck is going on. Um, I have no problem. I mean, Kathy's welcome to listen in. But I really reluctant at this stage. To get into, you know, A question back and forth. Sponsorship kind of thing. When we haven't even decided what we want to do. Um, this was referred to us by the council. We were given a deadline of what was it July? I forget it always is right. And this is voted on by the council. So, um, I'm perfectly willing to try and move it ahead as quickly as we can. But we do have a lot to do. Um, this committee has, and the council has referred to us with a very long timeline. Okay. So, um, I want to first get clear on what this committee wants to do. Um, and what I got the sense last time is they wanted to take the OCA document or excuse me, the council wanted us to take the OCA document and shape it into a broad process slash. We first wanted to determine policy versus process. Because we've got both of these sort of jumbled together, but the referral is understood it. And I think Kathy, you know, right was that we take the OCA document process and, and work it. And then bring it back to the council at some point. And we haven't even started that yet. So I'd like to start that process today. Using the document that, um, Darcy has put into the, had me put in the packet, but she's, I think wants to start with a memo to sort of give a, you know, you know, she also has a colleague who has been working with her on this. And so where it gets a little dicey is what's her role in this. Um, and I right now am trying to just get the committee to wrap its mind around what's happening before we start bringing in. Other counselors. So that's why I did not announce this in a general sense, but I think we're going to have to, we're going to have to, we're going to have to, we're going to have to, we're going to have to, we're going to have to, we're going to have to just reveal our story here. And I, I would not. I would not announce this in a general sense. Um, to the council at large. Because I wanted us to have some time ourselves to work on it and then open it up to anyone and his brother. The council wants to come. So that's what's complicating it here. So I'm happy to have Kathy come in. I would ask her respectfully not to speak. you know. Yeah. All right, Sarah. So my name is on this as well. That's right. There's, you know, Darcy and I are here. I find it a little bit insulting that it would, right, unless you want to hear from all three of us to just say, well, you know, Kathy should do the talking. I think this, this document is actually fairly straightforward. I don't think it would take that long to describe there's not many changes to just describe what the document does. And then we can go from there. I mean, that's my feeling. I think that we should just move forward. I don't agree with our not bringing Kathy in because it's completely different from previous procedures that we followed. But I think we should just move forward. And if we could look at the memo, that would be good. This is the memo. So basically the oops, lost you there. Basically, the three counselors tried to follow the guidance of the town council from the meeting to look at the OCA process. So the council, the council president had recommended that we that that it was the goal of having a uniform policy that'd be followed by the council committees over time was a good idea. We started with the OCA seven page set of procedures. And with the goal of, as several counselors mentioned at the meeting getting it back quickly to the council. So because it's time sensitive if we wanted to to apply in the upcoming planning board and other processes. So to to expedite the process, we did the six, the seven items, the seven things that are listed in this memo that are very, very straightforward. We just changed the title to town council appointment policy. We inserted a sentences in the prologue that just state that the goal is to have a uniformed unified policy used by all committees. We changed the wording of OCA outreach communications and appointments committee to town council or to this specific committee. We kept the wording as much as possible regarding discussions with the chair of the committee and with other wording. We did distinguish between the planning board's DBA and the resident non voting residents of the finance committee. We the one thing we did change substantively was that we inserted the so called term limit section that we know is not term limits into the into the new document in the form that it was proposed at the town council meeting. And we added a paragraph in in advance of it that came from the the town, the town appointments handbook that basically gave an overview of the different qualifications that we would look for in general and that we would want to have broad representation from the community and so on. So we put that in and we all and that also stressed that we want to have diversity among appointments in all different areas. So and as far as the appendix, we we added it in. We did not make any changes in it. We didn't edit it at all and thought that would just be a question of whether the town council wants to include the appendix, which which was in the OCA version. So we also, you know, took into consideration that that the GOL policy is a little different. And that that that we probably are going to have disagreements within this committee about what we're going to put forward that would then have to be rehashed in the town council anyway. So the goal was to get this back to the town council as as soon as possible. So that being said, I'd like to move to recommend the town council adopt the outreach communications and appointments process to recommend appointments to multiple member bodies appointed by the town council as amended in the policy for town council appointments dated April 18th, 2021. Sarah, did you want to add anything? Well, we have a motion. I'm sorry that's been presented. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. That's all right. I'm just looking for a second. A second. So Sarah is seconding this. All right. And what I understand this motion to be is the entire document that you submitted. The red line document is what you're proposing that we is that correct that you're okay. And I guess we haven't even discussed it yet. But okay. All right. So we have a motion that's been seconded. I, Mandy? Yeah, I think it's highly premature to make this motion. I am slightly offended that it is made at this point without even allowing GOL to discuss a policy. This is something that was provided by two counselors that are on GOL, the town, but one counselor that is not. GOL was referred to develop a policy. GOL hasn't even discussed the development of a policy yet. And to make a motion that will now, as it sits on this table, requires so many motions to amend to just deal with even small changes to this document that we haven't even been able to discuss, just add so much work to this that I can't support it at this point. It's, for example, the title town council committee appointment policy is so unclear that it appears to just by the title apply to town council committees, not the committees, the multiple member bodies that the town council appoints for like, it's got so many problems that aren't even substantive. To do this this way, I think is I'm sadly offended. It does. Yeah, I have to say it does seem premature. If something like this goes to the council in its current form, it's not going to get anywhere anywhere. So I think our task is to get it into the best shape we can. Working the five of us with our different perspectives, before we move to a motion to adopt something. So it does seem premature. It would require from now on every single change to be an amendment on to this document, and that's going to take forever. And at some point, so I would that's I do have just the concern here about that the motion at this point, just creating a huge time issue, let alone it, right. So I see both Darcy's hand, I think was first and then Sarah's Darcy's hand is down. I'm sorry, Sarah. So I just want to say that I feel like having this is huge, right, to send an entire policy to back to GOL, especially after OCA spent a year and a half on it, right? I feel like sending the entire OCA document, the whole policy and process was, I feel in a way to just bury this in GOL. And without other counselors being able to say exactly what they want or don't want. And I think I'm, I would rather scoop out my both of my eyeballs with a spoon than to go through this again, with a small committee, have it take, I think it would take us five months, six months, then bring it to the entire council. And then it wouldn't just be Scribner, right, issues, people are going to have huge issues with it. My thought was, I understand, yes, that the title might be poop at this point. But it is the OCA document in its entirety with Scribner changes. We addressed the issue that Alyssa had with the fact that it really wasn't term limits, which when you look through the document, it wasn't. Andy had brought up that he wanted to have and Steve did. And I think Mandy did too, that they, that preference was a weird word, and they wanted to make sure that there was diversity. I think that the sentences that we added, those pretty much answered those questions. And I would really would rather pump this right back to town council, and at least get some honest feedback about what people want, and they don't want. I feel like this was just they sent us out with an impossible task to bury it. Let me just speak to that briefing that I'm going to turn to Mandy. That's why I put this on the agenda for today. I set the agenda, and I put it on the agenda. And I actually had prepared a document to get this started. But it was superseded by another document that was sent to me. And so we're starting with that document. And I would just point out that there are going to be a host of issues, sir. It's not that simple. I have a host of issues with this. And so I was hoping to get that process started today. But now we have this in front of us. And it's going to take a very long time to work through it, which is unfortunate. But that's where we stand. Anyway, it's on the agenda today. So no one's burying anything. And I was hoping to discuss it in some detail today to get a sense of where the committee wants to go, and then bring it back to the next meeting. And hopefully have it in some shape. But in the current state that it's in, it's going to take forever to work through this. And that's actually just the nature of our work. If you send this back in the condition it's in now, it's not going to get anywhere. No one's gonna vote. I mean, I can't imagine any more than three people voting for this, because it just needs a lot of work. It's just the nature of our job. Alright, who's next? I've lost track of who put up next anybody who's had Mandy. I'm sorry, Pat. I feel like I would, I can't support this in for right now. I need some time to look at it. I would like to see George's document. And I would like to have a commitment from the chair, and the committee that this gets taken up at our next meeting and becomes the predominant issue. I don't feel like it's been sent to GL to be buried. But since there's lots of things that happened that I naively ignore, I'll take that as a possibility. And it shouldn't be ignored. We really do need a policy. And I would like, so I would like us to have George's document, the document that the three women, the three counselors have edited, and then anything that either Mandy Joe or I want to send that we send to the chair to be shared with everyone and that we bring this up at the next meeting. Alright. Again, I don't know the order. Darcy? Yeah, I think that there are, you know, there's a potential of taking a massive amount of time in GL and having serious disagreements on a lot of stuff that are in the, that is in the policy. And then coming up with a version that we send to the town council that they then don't agree with many, many of the parts that we've included. So I get that we don't feel like we're ready to do this now. I would really want us if we're going to, to look at it over one or two meetings that we really confine our comments to, for example, the title, the the aspects that the GL would want to make sure it gets in to make sure that we talk about the expertise of members of the Finance Committee and so on, but not spend massive amounts of time on issues that we know that the town council is going to also be spending time on. So that's the main thing is that this has the potential of taking up, you know, literally, many, many GL meetings. And we don't want that to happen. We want to get it back as quickly as possible. And so I would suggest that if we aren't going to get it back today, that we really try to condense our comments. I guess I just need to make this point. I'm sorry, man. That if we can't come to an agreement amongst the five of us, if we send something back with a five zero vote, that will have real impact. And we'll actually actually mean we have resolved many of the issues that are addressed and talked about honestly, many issues that are going to be talked about at the council. If we send something like this with a three to vote, it's not going anywhere. So what's the point? Right? I just don't understand if we can't as a group, the five of us with our different perspectives, fashion a policy that we can support five to zero, or maybe four to one, and send it to the council. What good is it to send something half baked three to two? It's just not going anywhere. And we'll use that. I mean, it just won't go anywhere. So do you want to accomplish something? Then let's do it here. If you don't want to accomplish something, let's just send this off now. And it's just going to die. It'll die at the council will get voted down. It won't get passed. I won't vote for it under any circumstances. And I'm sure I can find six other people at least. But if we send something that has been discussed and reviewed, and we've come to some consensus, I can support that I think you have a chance of getting it passed. But it can't happen. Like that. I'm sorry. Thank you. Um, so I want to respond to a couple things to Pat or whatever. We have open meeting law issues and we have deliberation issues. It was already a concern that two counselors plus a third put their opinion of what the policy should be. But most of those changes other than a couple were non substantive. But to put Georgia's policy up and then to put my redlined version of the one that went up before we've had a chance to discuss it is a clear violation of open meeting law, duration requirements. This is why we have to discuss it in meetings. And I don't agree with the counselors that have said that it was sent here to die. I don't agree with the counselors that say we shouldn't even discuss some of these sections. I have changes to every single section. Some of them are substantive. Some of them are not. It's hard to make a policy that relates to multiple committees and multiple appointment bodies and get the language consistent and understandable. And that requires changes to things. You know, it and then there's the question of what is policy versus what is process. You can't take a process document and just change the word process to policy and say, Oh, it's now a policy document. A policy is we will interview every candidate. A process is how that interview happens. And we haven't even had that discussion as to which, which are we doing? We were sent to come up with a policy. So I look at some of these sections of this form. And I go most of that's process, not policy. Most of its process. And do we get rid of all of the process sections and only leave in the policy sections? That's a discussion we as a committee must have as to what process versus policy is and what we're going to deem process versus what we're going to deem policy. Everything that says the chair needs to do this is process. Everything that says the committee or that the council will do this is policy. And then each committee could come up with who they're going to designate to do it. That would be more process. You know, we haven't even had those discussions yet. Each committee that this came from and adopted a process to get them through the whole process. A policy is different. And then there's the other thing of that I take offenseth that the councillors have said, well, we're willing to maybe consider adopting some of the GL changes that were made to the process so GL could do interviews for resident things. But they never they never referenced the changes that CRC made as anywhere about being able to consider those changes. Three committees have gone through this. Three committees have gone through the process and to just throw out any one committees and say that's not even worthy of consideration is also in my mind problematic completely. And to always, always reference just the planning board appointments instead of all the appointments is also getting some tiresome, I will say as a as a councillor. It sounds it seems as if when it's only the planning board appointments that are referenced that there is a bullet bullseye on just those appointments and all the other ones just don't matter. All the appointments the council makes matter and the process and the policy regarding those appointments for all of those multiple member bodies matter and we should not just leave out some in implication that well, they don't matter. I'd actually like to hear from Kathy since she contributed and she's here. I think at this point I mean I just my point is that GL is struggling with what it wants to do and Kathy's contribution at this point is about the larger document in front of us and I'm hoping that this document this motion will be withdrawn so that we can actually get to the business that is in front of us but if you wish her to speak to this motion I do want to bring this to a close. We have some other business believe it or not that we have to take care of under new business. We also have public comment and we have minutes to approve and it is now 12 24 so I would ask you to remove to withdraw your motion so that we can make a decision about how we're going to proceed rather than to continue this debate at this point because I don't see it being fruitful at all. We have some difficult issues as a committee to resolve before we can begin to talk about any particular document including the one in front of us. I think that we said that if any of us had a question or wanted to get input from Kathy we could do so. Do you have a question for Kathy? Yes I just want to hear her input on the motion. That's not a question. That's not a question and she's not a member of this committee that votes on that motion. Right I just at this point. The motion feels completely separate from any reason of having Kathy be responding. Since we don't appear to have a majority I will withdraw the motion but that requires a second right? I believe it does. The second must be agreeable to a second of the motion to withdraw too. I'm sorry. It would require Sarah if she seconded it to withdraw. Sarah would you agree to withdrawing the motion? Yeah let me say as chair and then I ask us to move on that I will put I'm not trying to bury this but I think I hope you understand this is not as simple as some people are making it sound that we just have to throw something up here make a few quick changes and voila we have something we can send right back to the council so they can vote on it right away. It's just that's just not the case okay this isn't simple it isn't easy that doesn't mean it can't be dealt with over the next two meetings that was kind of my dream originally and that's why I put it on the agenda. So people talking about something being buried they should read the damn agenda all right it's not first because in fact we had a whole series of other important issues to deal with and so I will put this on the agenda next time I will this document is will be obviously available again to the committee. I will submit my document for people to review and it will be on the agenda next time will it be the first or second item I can't tell you right now because I don't know what else is coming down the pike but it will be given priority by the chair will it get to the council in the next two weeks well obviously not the next four weeks I can't say this isn't easy okay if you want to vote on something right away we can do that and we can send it to the council and it will die there Darcy uh yeah I was just going to urge us to um try to get it done in the next two meetings I will do everything in my power to do that I promise you that and that is why in fact I had prepared a document for this body but it got superseded maybe I should have put it in anyway but I decided okay we'll start with this document we'll have two documents to look at next time I will give it priority um I will do everything in my power to get it I think realistically it's going to require at least one other GOL meeting at least but I will do what I can to move it forward but I can't make promises because this is a complicated thing okay good thank you George all right um we have um two sets of minutes I would like your permission I have reviewed them I think they are fine uh does anyone have any concerns about the minutes any problems issues um has everyone had a chance to at least look at them um because I would like to move them uh off our table but um if people have reluctant just raise your hand um and I can postpone them on more meeting um or if you have a change you wish to make otherwise I will entertain a motion uh to accept both sets of minutes um these are minutes for March 31st and April 7th 2021 second all right I have a motion that's been made by the chair and seconded I see no hands or faces with concerns or alarm so I'm going to move immediately to a vote and uh start with Sarah hi thank you Darcy yes Pat hi Mandy hi the chair is a yes so the vote is five zero thank you very much to accept the minutes of March 31 and April 7th as presented and as always a thank you to our minute taker um we have a item not anticipated and this we did get the bylaws back Mandy had a chance to insert make some changes um we can try and deal with these now I'd be willing to do that but it is 1229 so I think we can do them fairly quickly if you let me share my screen and put them up all right let me stop sharing mine but let me just look to the rest of the committee can you bear another I would say 10 minutes maximum we still do need to have public comment um and we do have one attendee which I believe yes we have two attendees and someone has their hand up so perhaps we should move to public comment now and then turn to if you are willing to turn to the new business okay yes so let's let's do public comment I see Pam Rooney has her hand raised and so if we could bring her into the room and she may speak for three minutes um Pam please go ahead thank you very much appreciate your time and I appreciate the the care and thoughtfulness that uh goes into creating policies and procedures I understand it's a lot of work and I certainly appreciate it I was chuckling as as a former volunteer on a number of different committees across town I'm beginning to feel like being a volunteer is sort of responding to an RFP now or a request for qualifications like you treat a consultant so it's getting very um although you want to be consistent it still should be a friendly process because in fact we are all volunteering as you are so you know we we want to keep it I think it's important to keep it consistent so that people who do want to volunteer understand from one board to another that there is in fact consistency across that one of the comments was made about all boards being important and they absolutely are I think the difference between the zoning board of appeals and the planning board that they in fact have permitting authority and that's very different than many committees on town which have recommendation authority and so having a diversity of perspectives on on a board such as those two at least um is really important because we in fact have to have a public discourse about the impacts and consequences of things such as zoning and that affects our lives in in in great detail sometimes so the public conversation and diversity of opinion is very very important in those conversations um in terms of renewals you you talked about term limits or something but but um perhaps you all as counselors are feeling that after a couple of years in in the position you're beginning to feel more confidence uh a little more self-assuredness in speaking out and expressing yourselves and I and I believe that the same goes for board appointments where someone has gained some experience and understanding of the processes it's important unless they've done something egregious to continue those those appointments they are volunteering and and contributing as they are able so and and if in fact you are having to table this conversation today perhaps you might make a rec recommendation to whomever decides this and I'm a little confused at who actually now gets to decide this um perhaps this uh the board reappointments could be could be postponed until you settle this kind of thing I'm thinking of two seats on the planning board who are up this year and both of them are doing a great job does it hurt to extend that their terms uh until this gets decided so thanks very much for your time and thanks for letting me speak thank you thank you um counselor Shane has her hand up so we could bring her into the room and let her speak am I unmuted you're fine yes okay um I just want to echo what Pam said and she said it far better than I could um and just in terms of moving things out I was actually caught by surprise at the Monday night discussion because I had listened to the discussion in GOL and saw a process be worked out and clearly not a full-blown policy that came out with a four to one vote and had sentences being added to it so I I thought you've done a good job about and then to have the reception to be this is just a piece of a broader policy we can't just think about this one thing was a surprise to me I was really caught by surprise um so I'm hoping that within two meetings worth um whatever is considered to be policy versus process um could be ironed out and I think the importance of uniformity and consistency um not just from committee to committee but over time so that if we get a different group of four people on a committee that suddenly it's not a a new set of anything you know if GOL changed then you would do the finance appointments differently in some way but it just it lends a consistency so um and I really I would second Pam's idea of if these things need to be worked out one way of buying some time would be to extend the appointments that we currently have so we don't have to face either divergent or inconsistent or what are we doing kinds of questions we could just allow you to hammer out some ideas so I'll just leave it with that I thought that was a creative way to say um it's not like the world falls apart tomorrow the way we were all thinking the decision on Chauvin was which way it went would really matter and it did so I don't think it's that kind of decision here but just getting some time um if possible would be terrific thank you I see no other members of the public president with their hands up in fact um so that is the end of public comment um so let us go back if you are willing colleagues to see if we can move these two bylaws along and Mandy you have the screen my computer went crazy so you can see storm water management now on the screen right good I'm going to go through exactly what the changes are based on the attorney opinion on this I added the c-section g for non-monetary penalties that is no substantive change other than that's a tradition we do in the bylaws now that we forgot to do at our first GLL review and Mandy I'm right away I'm asking a quick question very stupid question why is enforcement in parenthesis I have no idea that can we just remove the parenthesis I don't understand I mean it's just here we go I mean I don't know removed um and then the only other changes in storm water I'm paging down because it takes a while to get to them is anywhere the superintendent of public works was referenced that did not have or designee after it I added the phrase or their designee could we look at each one briefly do you mind I'm sorry this is the first one in applicability um because some of these are so this one is may also require a permit subject to the discretion of the superintendent of public works or their designee so it doesn't just have to be gilford all right okay that's that one I mean I some of these I think yeah okay um the next one is emergency activity this is an exception I think in the exemption section any emergency activity that throws us as determined by the superintendent of public works or their designee okay do we really need to go through each one if that's the only change George has to see each one I did and my concern is in some cases but perhaps this is just over over reaching here over over doing it but um that in a lot of cases I'm not sure it's even needed um yeah that needed to be changed in your document thank you hold on I need to make sure yeah right there or right now cut that put it in the wrong section all right so super storm water management permits yeah superintendent or designee have authority actions superintendent or designee may take the following actions appeal decision by the superintendent or designee waivers superintendent or designee wave yeah I think the main issue was enforcement here's the enforcement superintendent or designee superintendent or designee right and this this allows the police I take it to be used as an enforcement agent is that correct okay basically the police um which was already up top but it also you know in one of these it was um um enter property right if you didn't have the word designee it would have to be gilford and only gilford to enter the property now there made sense it made sense yeah you could say Amy can or someone else can right exactly all right so those are the only changes to storm water I don't know whether we want to vote to recommend or you know I don't know what the vote we I guess we would vote to recommend as amended I have to declare a clear consistent action both um this um the storm this is the storm water bylaw yes um as amended by gol on april 21st 2021 would be the motion second I'm making a path of seconded and I'm going to go immediately to a vote unless I see hands raised start with Mandy aye and pat aye Sarah aye thank you Darcy yes and the chair is yes so it's five zero to accept those changes those amendments to the storm water bylaw so this is the id de bylaw again just the non-criminal here I'll I'll get rid of the parentheses for George maybe there's a reason I don't know I do what it is um and then okay and it was that one phrase in the data block and then it's just I think in this one it's nearly only in the exemption section yeah yeah yeah hold on how come the exempt oh not the exemptions in suspension and so comply with an emergency suspension the superintendent or designee may take the step superintendent will or designee will issue the written order in it in that section and then the enforcement is the same adding or their designee this again allows for the same reasons all right and there were a lot more in this one yes there's a lot more enforcement you know and appeals okay yep all right and this was reviewed by attorney and gave his approval to these sorts of changes so again I would entertain a motion to declare this version of the id de bylaw as amended on April 21 2021 to be clear consistent and actionable second thank you second from mandy again I'm going to go immediately to a vote Darcy yes Sarah hi uh pat hi and mandy hi and the chair is an eye so again five zero um to accept this declare this as clear consistent actionable as amended all right future agenda items um the chair has agreed and committed to putting agenda item number six um at the top or near the top of the agenda next time preferably at the top um however we do have a problem we have the dab process that clearly needs our attention so there's going to be some challenge there um I probably would put dab first um but um and put number six second um but it will be at or near the top um the um we've asked everyone to give some thought to that process particularly around the issue of interviews um SOIs etc I think there were three things in particular that we asked people to give some thought to um and come prepared to argue for um with the understanding that our goal is to send a recommended uh process um to the council the council will then decide what to do about that and to whom to give it though it most likely will be us so those are the two items I have anything else that people have in mind for next time I'm not aware of any pressing uh proclamations resolutions bylaws I'm not aware of any you have agreed to let me and Mandy look at the uh Asian heritage proclamation and we will do that and and get that to Lynn and you asked me to reach out to Lynn um and talk about proclamations and how we treat them anything I'm missing all right well thank you all I'm sorry we went over time longer than we would like but um go well I'll see you all soon thank you George all right and thank you Emily yeah Emily thank you thank you Athena thanks everyone bye thank you