 10.33 a.m. on June 19th 2019 the meeting of the governance organization legislation committee of the council and we are on video and so just making that noted to anyone in the room so that they know we have a quorum of three members out of our five with two members absent so we can call to order and start so the first item on the agenda is a continue to follow-up on the committee charge update request we had assigned two weeks ago George to come up with a list did were you able to create that within two weeks yes that would be great because I don't think either of us have seen that right yeah so if you can well while he's working on that I'm gonna jump to item 6 on our agenda which is the adoption of the May 22nd and June 5th minutes we don't have them ready yet so we will be skipping them and postponing that to the next meeting just to announce that and take care of that right now do we want to possibly because we only have three of us here just push that off to the next meeting or at least move on to our next thing and then if you find it we can come back to it yeah it's essentially a list of the two committees divided by time manager appointed and select board appointed that are five years or older and can be edited you know it's a word Excel document and I can send it to everybody no that sounds great just for curiosity before we move on how about how long was the list I believe it's about 30 committees in that I don't have an exact number but and we go through it and decide that some of them are okay sounds good so we're in agreement we will push this back to the next meeting with George to email us that document for posting that brings us to our next agenda item continue consideration and discussion of revisions to newly adopted rules of procedure and then I created a list again to see where we would get to it and the first one on this list is a vote on a motion from the last meeting which was moved to add a section 2.2 H to the rules actually before we start let's just all be on the same page here I posted to SharePoint the modified the latest modifications of the proposed or latest proposed modifications to the rules we can go through as we go through them I'll indicate what I'm doing on these you'll see is as we act I'm creating a comment that shows that we've done something so that we can track sort of what we've done since everything is not nothing's being accepted so that the council can see the changes so I did not update the table of contents in terms of creating a new one I did add the right headers so that when we do update it the appendices will be listed and then you know there have been a couple of sort of just clerical changes but then we're back into section 2.2 we had this is powers and duties of the president and vice president one of the biggest changes you'll see throughout the whole document is I went through and added all of the hyperlinks for the charter any MGL reference and any CMR reference code of Massachusetts regulation references so it looks like there's a lot of changes they're almost all just hyperlinks so the motion that's on the table and I'll take thoughts on whether we should act on that today with only three of our members here was to add to the powers and duties of the president section a new letter H to serve as spokesperson of the full council and that was a motion that was made last meeting on June 5th but that we decided we all needed a little bit of time to think about as to whether we wanted that in there or not and now we're missing two members so I would take thoughts on whether we should postpone that yet again or not Evan two weeks feels like a year and so I went to look at the minutes to remind myself what the discussion was and of course they're not there but one question is do you have who made and seconded the motion because I don't remember and it could have been me so my notes from last week show that the motion was made by Steve seconded by Evan to add that language service spokesperson of the full council the only other notes I have is that George indicated that the rules give guidance but this doesn't seem to give guidance and Pat said she kind of agreed with George but none of us because it was sort of a new discussion we're really comfortable on making that decision last week so that's what I have in my notes so this is technically still an active motion yes it is because we used our right to postpone or some I mean I don't have notes on but we sort of agreed by consensus that we needed to postpone action on the motion it feels weird to vote on a motion when the maker of the motion is not present yeah I'm fortunate but also I think we really need the minutes I think Evan's right that two weeks is a year it seems these days and without a written record of what transpired it's so again we could just remind the minute takers that and maybe they're here and I just don't see them I haven't been able to find them or and they have not been emailed to me either there was not we know where they live so I am making a note that we are postponing until the proponent of the motion is present and the minutes are available on a the next one is per the clerk of the council advise on language for passage of executive session minutes in a timely manner and prior to end of legislative session so I spoke with our clerk of the council and I think given what she said I think this ended up putting something into section rule 8 I think 9 10 wherever minutes are dealt with which I can't seem to find now 3.5 yes 3.5 thank you the table of contents comes in handy so what the clerk of the council came back with me at is essentially a copy of North Hampton's rule on this which is not what we were discussing last week or two weeks ago which was how do you pass the minutes in a timely manner but more of how do you make that determination as to when they can be disclosed the executive session minutes don't need withheld and this is a modification of North Hampton's the section 3.5 before is the proposal I the language that came from the clerk of the council and based on North Hampton's but North Hampton had the president of the council solely making that determination every three months and the clerk of the council recommended that maybe this council would want to do it as a full council making the determination not just the president of the council and so that's the change that has been made from the North Hampton language to this which also requires then by October 31st of every calendar year that we make that determination so it's it's meeting every three months in executive session to review minutes see if anything can be released and never meeting after you know making sure you've always held that meeting by October 31st which is prior to a election so that's the the gist of the proposed language I can read out proposed language the language from North Hampton that allows the president to do it which is allowable under state law but like I said the clerk thought maybe this council would not want the president making that sole determination so thoughts I'm trying to just process our discussion two weeks ago my memory serves and again we don't have the minutes was that it was a discussion about when we can approve executive session minutes recognizing that there might be long spans of time where we don't go into executive session and there would be just minutes this seems to have more to do with releasing executive session minutes yes so I don't under I'm trying to connect the two so this seems different than what we talked about it is I'm I think potentially what I had originally interpreted as the town clerk's request was approving of the minutes not the you know not voting on the withholding or releasing of the minutes because when I wrote her she came back with this so I think I might have originally interpreted her request wrong we might if we're concerned about both be able to modify this for approval and review you know not later than entered executive session if needed to review the minutes of executive sessions to determine relevant could be if needed to approve and review I mean we could modify this to go both ways if we're concerned about them sitting too long because we don't need executive session too often but it is you're right different from what we talked about last week last meeting George just a question for the minutes taker this document that you're referring to from the clerk of the council is actually in our packet so the document that is in the packet is the rules of procedure adopted I'm just gonna read the title adopted 2019 520 proposed geo amendments draft revised 2019 6 5 and 2019 6 10 and it is in that document as a sort of a certain inserted change under track changes in section 3.5 B4 I didn't I did not put the email exchange between myself and the clerk into the packet although if you guys want I'm certainly happy to forward that on Evan so the idea being that the council will determine when it's time to release executive session minutes correct correct so we don't currently have this rule correct so should we not have a rule who is the default I don't know I just know and we can look up the MGL and I'll do that right now there are multiple options under the statute for who makes that determination up the statute section 22 so there's multiple options and minutes of executive sessions maybe with held from disclosure to the public in their entirety as long as publication may defeat when the purpose for which a valid executive session was held has been served the minutes blah blah blah or any way shall be disclosed for the purposes of the subsection the public body or its chair or designee shall at reasonable interviews intervals review the minutes of executive session to determine if the provisions of the subsection warrant continued non disclosure such determination shall be announced at the body's next meeting and such announcement shall be included in the minutes of that meeting so that that nearly I just read chapter 30 a section 22 G one that more mirrors what Northampton was so they designated under their rules the chair of the public body of the council to do the review at a regular so if this reads the public body or its chair or designee it defaults to the council as a whole so the rule would only if we put it in as this with a default to the council and keeping it as the council the rule would just essentially define what a reasonable interval is and add the October 31st so it would define that reasonable interval as no more than three months and require it prior to October 31st of every calendar year we could adopt that the chair does the review instead of us having to convene an executive session if we feel that is more logical why don't we offer it and if there's objection and the council can right weigh in but there's a good reason to do it the way that you're suggesting for avoiding the whole council having to convene and I think but if the council feels that this is unreasonable then we could we'd have to revise it but maybe it makes sense to give them a real proposal to respond to and make the case for why we think it's the best option and then they can decide I was gonna read the language directly out of Northampton's if you're curious so Northampton has two sections for releasing of minutes so this would go into four one and four two or whatever it is the first section is as provided in mgl chapter 30 a section 22 g1 the one I just read the council president with the assistance of the administrative assistant to the city council and city solicitor shall at reasonable intervals not to exceed three months review the minutes of executive sessions to determine if the relevant statutory provisions warrant continued non-disclosure such determination shall be announced at the city council's next meeting and such announcement shall be included in the minutes of that meeting the second provision is whenever the council president requests that a vote of the council be taken to determine whether to release executive session minutes that vote must be taken in executive session so the second clause actually gives the council president and out to say I'm not sure I need I should be making this determination I want the whole council to so under Northampton unless what seems Northampton seems to just essentially take what mgl recommends right unless the council president requests it there is no vote of the town council required to release executive session minutes correct so my personal opinion is I understand why this council might not want to put additional powers into the presidency I also if we don't have to have additional executive sessions so that we can review minutes from executive sessions to determine whether they can be released I would always are on the side of making our meeting shorter and less involved what I did like about what I just heard in Northampton that that made me a little bit uncomfortable with this proposed language is that essentially it's done in collaboration with the city solicitor and the city clerk and in this language it seemed as if it be solely the decision of the council now my assumption would be in executive session the town manager would be the clerk of the council would be there so it would still be there but it feels like it shouldn't be the decision only of the council to release executive session minutes because much of executive session minutes are so intimately tied to things that the town is doing turn mine off do you have any thoughts George and it makes a good point that what happens in executive session does involve far more than the council and it's so having if I understand him having another set of eyes and ears in making this decision would be preferable to leaving it to just the council itself or just the president is that if I understand it correctly or suggesting having this additional and that is what we see in what Northampton does yes so if we were to use or follow their model and use their language in such a way that it had this extra set of eyes we would it does not have the three months in the October 31st date so that's something we would put in ours is that correct so Northampton's does the statute does not so that is something that we would if we want us time certain we should put it in the rules yeah and the interval of every three months defining it is three months yes would be something we would do and we have a language pretty much written already it sounds like if we're happy with it I think so so I've just added that language we don't have it with the assistant of the clerk of the council's I assume the this equivalent to the administrative assistant to the city council in Northampton I'll substitute that to clerk of the council and then I'll read you the whole thing and then the town attorney the decision then becomes is it the council or the council president what would we like to propose actually have another clarification sure so Northampton has a city solicitor right physically be in the room as this is being discussed we do not so when we see town attorney are we expecting that we would send a request for an opinion to town attorney can we release these minutes we could substitute town manager for city solicitor and then the manager could be thoughts the concern seems to be having someone who has a broader sense of the picture beyond just the council and the actors involved and that would I assume be the town manager if he doesn't we could substitute the manager for solicitor so shall I read it as it currently is proposed as provided in mgl chapter 30 section 22 the council with the assistant of the clerk of the council and the town manager shall at reasonable intervals not to exceed three months and not later than October 31st of every calendar year enter executive session under mgl chapter 30 a section 21 a 7 if needed to review the minutes of executive sessions to determine if the relevant statutory provisions warrant continued non-disclosure all council votes to release executive session minutes shall be taken by roll call in executive session I like that so the question that that that final question then is is this an action of the whole council or is this an action of the president I think we should make it an action of the whole council to avoid just it seems a natural and have a strong feeling one way or the other but since the council seems to be somewhat sensitive to giving the president what some perceived as excessive powers this would avoid that objection and I see we have a split and we're not at a full committee I think for now I might prefer counsel over president simply because we're still waiting our way into things see how it works see if these decisions are more wrote or not after we've made a couple then we can revisit whether it really does need that I think I would like to add something to this instead of just the to review the minutes of executive session to determine if the relevant I think I'd also like to add to approve the minutes of executive session and to review to determine if the relevant so that then every three months at a minimum were approving any outstanding minutes as we said two weeks is a long time I can't imagine waiting six seven months to try and remember what happened at the last executive session to approve them what are people's thoughts on that change do we know what North Hampton's practice is nope it seems reasonable to me I agree that beyond three months we would probably struggle to remember that seems like a not unreasonable time frame so what I read and added was you know after the entry executive session under mgl chapter 30 a section 21 a 7 if needed to approve executive session minutes and to review the minutes of executive sessions to determine if the relevant statutory provisions blah blah blah does that sound like good language yes so I will make a note in the new document I created that on yep Evan the reason I suggested delegating this authority to the president was to make it so that the council doesn't necessarily have to go into executive session more often than needed however if we're already going to executive session fair you know to approve I have no issue with it being a council decision and I think especially what Mandy Joe said of let's see what these decisions actually look like first before we decide I think is persuasive so I would actually be supportive of the council maintaining control of this for now so I've made a note that today we reached consensus on this language and that is in a new document I created that this I'll relabel for next meeting that brings us to item C section 10.10 B and this is add language for the process of appointing non-voting finance committee members so we passed our rules with the rules committee having a document that says in 10.10 B process to be added it's page 26 or 29 of the document 26 on the numbering so I thought we should add the language I did not draft language I'm thinking the language should be something like process for this is non-voting members of finance committee the process could simply be the council shall use the same process to appoint non-voting members of finance committee that it uses to appoint planning board in CBA it could be as simple as that I think there'd been some language of do we refer directly to an OCA adopted process or not I'd love to hear thoughts on how we might iterate a process in these rules for non-voting finance committee members Evan so as is widely known at this point OCA is in the process of thinking about the process to review and revise its process and so referring to a specific process would be unwise at this point because that's likely to change because some things are in flux while it makes sense on the surface that OCA will adopt a process that will be uniformly applied to anybody that OCA appoints it's not necessarily a given and in theory OCA could could decide separate processes for planning board CBA from finance committee especially given some of the ideas that people have thrown out for how to appoint planning board CBA those would not some of those would not be logically applicable to finance committee and so it might be wise for process to just say appointments to the finance committee will be recommended by OCA we'd write out the acronym so that we recognize the authority to put forward appointments rest in OCA there's no confusion about that especially given our prior debate over who has that authority but that the actual process by which OCA comes up with it is within the purview of OCA not within the purview of the rules George any thoughts you're you're both of you are on OCA right and we're both reviewing the process that will be become the process before the process that we're going to change to the process so it's yeah as Evan made so there is really no process at the moment you can actually put in here so do we make it just something very vague or do we just leave it the way it is for the moment do we need to act on this since we don't really have much to say well so I think we have a couple of options the charter simply states council rules shall address the appointment of such members so we could interpret that as section a the council not the president is the appointing authority addresses the appointment of such members just with a and then leave it at that modify anything we need to because the headings has appointment process you could modify that to not deal with process and delete be and just say you know council rules addressed it because we just said the council is the appointing authority or we could go something as vague as OCA what what Evan was suggesting or we could set an actual process forth I'm not sure I'm for setting a strict I I'm more of the let's refer to something so that that can be changed without having to change the rules so maybe it's best to just have you know 1010 titled appointment of non-voting members of finance committee that and maybe reword the whole thing to get rid of the thing and just say the council is the appointing authority or something like that although you could just leave the preface in that says council rule shall address the appointment of each member of such members and then right after that say that council is the appointing authority and leave it at that I I would get rid of the A and B and then keep the first instance the finance committee may include members of the public who shall have a voice but no vote in the finance committees deliberations and I don't think you need to say council will still address the appointment but we could keep that in there but these are the council rules so they're this is what they're doing and then just say the council not the president is the appointing authority to some extent you don't need to call out Oka because it is written to Oka's charge right that we recommend appointments George no thoughts really so if I move that sentence up to after deliberations we could maybe reference and say per Charter section 5.5 comma the council is the appointing authority to at least reference that the Charter says these rules and then we're giving the authority does that work for people don't know whether I got rid of my hyperlink in doing that so I'm going to highlight that for my own reference and then we're going to delete council rule shall address the appointment of such members and then A and B in totality and then in the heading appointment of non voting members of finance committee instead of appointment process for and I'll highlight the whole thing and say what date we did this just consensus on revision on that one that brings us if we're all good with that that brings us to the financial measures this is section part of the Charter is this this is section 8.2 C page 21 of the document 19 in the actual 21 if you're looking for a page number and this is a discussion we started last week at the very end of the meeting and realized we didn't have time to go through it so we stopped 8.2 C with that table of contents you can scroll down the side form it's really nice and so right now the language that was adopted is all measures authorizing a loan the levying of a tax or the expenditure of money shall be referred to the finance committee when received by the council the council shall make the referral at the next regular meeting so as it stands right now there are no automatic referral of any matters to the finance committee rules originally everything was going to be automatically referred but that is not what came to the council because there was a concern that brought to the rules committee that if everything was automatically referred that meant that the budget under the operating budget the annual operating budget would be referred immediately upon receipt by the council and there's language in the charter that actually says that but that it would be whenever the town manager emailed the council the budget which could be April 30th could be May 1st could be April 20th and that from that date the finance committee would have 30 days to report and present on its report to the council per the charter and there was some concern that that put undue pressure on the finance committee to get its work done within that timeframe given when council meetings are generally held in May the first and third not the second and fourth and given also Memorial Day Monday where there wouldn't be a council meeting and so it would shorten the amount of time this finance committee has to actually review the budget and so in response to that towards the end of one rules was passing stuff we changed the language to no automatic referral that's what passed the council that's where it sits right now but they said we as governance should relook at that issue and see do we still want out of do we want that way where the council has to vote to refer any finance matter do we want automatic referral do we want automatic referral of everything or everything but say the budget and also looking at the charter is everything but the budget still in conformity with the charter so that's the history I don't have a ton of notes about this from last week because I think we just essentially got through that and said we don't have time to figure this out so that's where we stand there are three options that were listed in the rules and obviously three already drafted options we can do whatever we want we don't have to go with any of those three that were listed in the document that we're working off of for outstanding items so thoughts on do we want to recommend the council maintain having to vote on every referral of a financial matter to the finance committee or do we want to consider at least some automatic referrals and then we can discuss if if we go to the automatic referral how much Evan automatic referrals make sense to me I would like to see an automatic referral I think it makes sense in the budget to also be automatic referred except for the dilemma that you presented that was imposed on us by the Charter Commission and so you're right if the council if the finance committee always gets the budget on May 1st and has to make a presentation and recommendation to the council by May 31st that could be challenging especially given Memorial Day holiday and so if our read of the Charter is that it's not indicating automatic referral which some reads of it could suggest that then I would be in favor of the second option that was drafted for us and just for reference of those on video right now that second option reads all measures authorizing a loan the levying of a tax or the expenditure of money except for budgets submitted under Charter section 5.5 shall be automatically referred to the finance committee when received by the council the president shall notify the council of the referral at the next regular council meeting George I can't find it difficult to make a case for any other alternatives so the second seems to be the one left standing except say I agree with Evan suggestion that this would probably be the best option it it's the one I like to so what I will do is do a wholesale copy of that one and delete the other one into the document we're working on so that the new one is has I just read it so that brings us to I'm not sure this is something we should deliberate now but the 8.2d the president shall notify the council of the referral at the next regular council meeting of town manager appointments that have been referred to Oka don't I'd have to think on that a bit more but I don't know that that's actually been happening that is true and given that when the town manager they're automatically referred to Oka but they don't just go to Oka when the town manager files he emails to the entire council and so the entire council is aware I'm just wondering if that line is necessary because I don't actually think there's been a situation where so you know last last week we had received public art commission historical commission local district historical commission and human rights commission we received them last week we are not making our without recommendations I come to the council until the July 1st meeting the president didn't mention at the meeting Monday that those had been referred to Oka and so either that rule was not followed well I mean that rule was not followed right but also I don't necessarily know that she needed to because the entire council received those emails and so we might not need to deliberate on this now but I always hesitate to have anything in the rules that we're just going to casually ignore yeah and if we are casually ignoring with no consequence then perhaps it need not be there from my personal point of view you make a good point if they're already being emailed to the whole council does there need to be a separate notice to the council at a meeting I think the thought could be that that notifying at the next regular council meeting serves not the council but the public because the public doesn't necessarily know exactly which appointments have been sent forward and so that would notify the public of hey the managers sent proposed appointments for these six committees on of course if we're going to keep it in we need to get it being complied with but that is one thing I can see is a benefit to requiring that sort of thing and it can simply be an agenda item that's just sit on the president report agenda item of here's the things but that that's that's an off the top of my head one benefit of keeping it in that that actually does make a lot of sense actually and then all we need to do is just remind the president that this is something that she needs to do and evidence right that it's not for the council because the council has been notified but it's really for the public that does seem important yeah I think we should leave it in and then just remind the president that this is a role we need to so are we ready to move on next on our list is e3e on the agenda advise on how to incorporate work groups into the rules of procedure there is sample language and the reason so the rules of procedure right now have similar to what it had for finance committee a big thing on I'm gonna find it 10.5 so 10.5 is where it is right now and it is sent essentially in our rules a heading that says work groups will refer to GOL to develop a way to enable work groups so that's been referred to us there was rules had some sample language at one point in the rules that it ended up pulling out and I will read that language and then some of the questions that flowed from that which is why then rules ended up pulling it out and saying this needs a larger discussion the stamp sample language was standing or ad hoc council committees may establish work groups to consider a measure if they determine that the issue is sufficiently complex to warrant analysis of alternative approaches and or consequences of actions work groups shall be given a timeline for reporting back to the originating council committee work groups may include members of the public work groups are usually subject to open meeting law the chair of the appointing authority shall preside until the work group chair is elected so the first question that came up from our clerk of the council on this was who appoints the work group and the second question that came up was relating to open meeting law and as as the clerk of the council reminded us two or more members of a standing or ad hoc council committee constitutes a work group and and in some sense to that once a member of a standing or ad hoc council committee is on a work group that work group because it was created by a public body is subject to open meeting law because it's a subset of a public body so the usually subject to she thought might need reworded to our subject to or or something like that so that's sort of where we got and we got stuck with well who should be the appointing authority on these how would that happen what does that look like and then you start getting into those questions and then suddenly the question becomes very complicated and so it got pushed to GOL Evan so to some extent what we're doing here is we're taking the term that could be interpreted a million different ways and using the rules to define it right because work group is we could call a lot of things a work group and so in my mind would differentiated a work group in the context of these rules was that they would include members who are not they would include people on it who are not part of the committee that created it right which isn't necessarily in here it just as works groups may include members of the public but my thought is that a work group might also include other counselors who are not on that committee perhaps right because if you're just talking about work group is a could potentially be several members of the committee we you know Oka's been doing that we're calling it a subcommittee of the committee right so we have our outreach subcommittee which given this language would more appropriately fall to it's a work group and so I think that we're just trying to figure out when we're talking about work groups what do we mean and I think that we need to figure out what's the purpose of a work group how is it different from just a subcommittee of a committee three or four members of the committee doing something independently and then what applies to that I the only thing I will say I mean I I can't think of a situation in which a work group would not be subject to open meeting law so I would I can imagine that usually has to be removed but George my thought of work group is that it would buy almost by definition or in my understanding of it would be involving members of the public and maybe that's in other words if it's a subcommittee it would just be you know members of the council though your point is that of course what if you're not a member of the committee and I'm thinking particularly CRC where this might be a fairly common thing that they would do and they would certainly I would think they would assume they would want it be open to other members of the council participating but I would think the main thrust would be to get members of the public with involved assuming looking for their expertise looking for their you know whatever it is that they bring to the table otherwise it would just be a subcommittee and the committee they just do whatever subcommittees do so I guess the first thought I would have is that their working group or work group would constitute some of the members would be members of the public and and or members of not member council members are not members of the committee is that so I think it could even be broader than that because it could also in theory include say like a staff member right and so to me what defines a work group is that some of the members are not members of the of the committee itself right and so it doesn't really matter whether they're public or other councillors don't make or you know it's just that they're there it's bringing people into committee deliberations that do not sit on the committee it sounds like we're kind of on the same page on that but it's not necessarily what this language says and we would assume that they would all have equal voting rights so no matter who's in this body and so far as they make decisions everyone has a say so I guess yes I think that was the goal one of the things I struggled with between something like this and say an ad hoc council committee is what is that difference not a subcommittee of a council committee but an ad hoc committee where we get to kind of define who we put on that committee it doesn't have to be just councillors just like we get to define with finance that we're putting residents on if if a measure is you know something and and I know at our last council meeting Steve Schiver indicated that they thought the percent for art bylaw that has potential bylaw that has been presented and referred to CRC and finance might be a complicated issue enough to need a small group of people to work on it you can either do that informally by say the public art commission just sitting down and doing it similar to what Evan and I attempted to do with the limitations on campaign finance of we're interested in this let's come up with something or you can do it formally and is the formal once it's at the council stage is the formal process a council ad hoc committee because one of the questions becomes you've got something you're sending people out to work on it you've got a committee that sending people out is there knowledge that the council is receptive to the potential for something to be proposed if you're doing something as a council the one of the questions I think maybe we need to start asking before referrals is is the council likely to pass something or are we sending people off to work on something that has no chance of passage because no one on the council even likes the idea or does does it have a chance of passage depending on what it looks like and a work group created by a committee doesn't necessarily have the chance for that airing and then you're bringing in potentially bringing in residents and asking them to work on something versus counselors we signed up for this to work on things that may or may not pass but residents might get frustrated if you start creating groups having them work on something and then it getting to the council stage and not having a chance so that's that's a little bit of a diversion but I still struggle with is a committee the appropriate place to be creating essentially some small group of people to work on something or is that more appropriate for the entire council to do through an ad hoc committee and and as yeah I'll add one thing as as Evan takes a break and that is this is something we struggled with the goal in rules was ad hoc committees are much more formal work groups might not need to be that formal and so they might not have to go through as formal of appointment process they might be able to be quicker and all but an ad hoc committee has one appointing authority we know who that is you know but that was one of the other things that rules struggled with in terms of this difference was is there a way to have something that is a little more flexible than maybe a formal ad hoc committee and a couple minute break till our one member gets back we are back on the air after our short break and we are in the middle of discussing work groups right now and can I ask another just a question we are talking about work groups strictly this simply concerns obviously the council right yes and so the manager can also create work groups or working groups friends or no I mean that has nothing to do with us whatsoever I would argue that has nothing to do with us and he can do that whenever he wants and we have nothing to say about that and we're just talking about when the council can and what that means yes Evan so I'm going back to my like elementary school what why who when right and I'm trying to make sure we can answer those questions so what is a work group seems to be some collection of members of the council or the committee and non-members and so what makes this different from a committee ad hoc or otherwise of the council seems to be that it includes people who are not members of the body that creates it why seems to be laid out pretty clearly here to consider a measure if they determine that the issue is sufficiently complex to warrant analysis of alternative approaches and or consequences of actions and I'm not completely sold on that actually because it seems like that is tied to consider a work group only ever considers an existing measure and it seems like there could be the possibility that a work group is formed to come up with a policy but maybe not maybe that the council doesn't want that but to me it seemed like if there was a problem identified and a committee felt like the solution that they want to propose is outside the scope of that committee itself they could create a work group to bring in other expertise to help craft something but this language as I read it seems like it's only to consider a measure so that that that seems to imply that there's some existing measure the question that Mandy Joe had was you know should they be created by a committee or by the full council and I think I understand the idea being that if you don't have a majority of the council who's in favor of such a thing coming forth then you might be asking a whole bunch of people to waste their time so I don't know what to go ahead George I guess I never think that getting a group of citizens involved in town business town work no matter how it finally plays out is ever a waste of time it's always a risk I don't see how you can avoid that you it's never a foregoing conclusion what's going to come from your labors that applies to us as much as anybody else but one of the things that's attractive to me about work groups is that assuming they're put together well and they have a clear sense of mission and a time frame it gets people engaged in in town government and could lead who knows to what it would be nice if it actually leads to something concrete related to what the work group is working on but I think irrespective of that it gets counselors and the public and staff people engaged in the business of government and that I think is a good right off the bat so I wouldn't be too concerned about you know oh what will happen if you create a work group and then the council decides that you know we just won't accept it because they can do that with anything in the end I imagine in creating a work group you whoever it the creating body is the whoever the individuals are it might behoove them to sort of you know get a feel for the sense of the world is out there but in the end I think there's there's a good just in getting people good people together and mixing up I like the idea of the public and staff and so on working on a specific problem and I think good will come from that no matter what so what I'm hearing is we like the idea we're not sure the how at this point in a sense that we're getting an idea of what they might look like but the question is how best to define that in language to make it as broad as possible but also to clarify some things and Evan and so I don't know whether our time right now is well spent trying to hash out that language or whether one of us wants to try to take on given what's been said here coming up with something that takes the language that was already done but clarifies things like who appoints where it's coming from all of that Evan so I would be happy to do that but I think that I would need a little bit more conversation here to work out a couple other things I can always massage language later but I think to me personally it makes sense that either I agree with George and I think it probably is the purview of committees sometimes to be able to establish work groups when I think about the amount of discussion that we've had over just one small issue sometimes it might make sense for a committee to say you know we've talked about this so much we need to bring other people in for us the other people were the counselors because it related to the council not that that was useful but for other committees it might mean other people and so but I think the council should also be able to establish work groups right and so it seems like in my opinion you'd want to give the authority to establish group work groups either both to the council as a whole who might in the course of its business identify an issue it wants people working on that requires money counselors but also to committees question is there's actually some like literal logistical questions here like how do how do how does a committee or the council decide to create one so I think it may we might even want to specify is it by majority vote of the committee to establish one you could argue you know what what Mandy Joe was saying of you want to make sure that there's enough buy-in I mean you could even put a higher vote percentage right you could say by a two-thirds vote of the committee because the assumption is that if you have a five-member committee before right before that at least you have if it's if it's for you have at least four of the seven final votes you might need in the council who are on board with this right but that's one way of perhaps indicating how much support is figuring out what vote threshold you need then the question becomes do you have a charge for this work group and if so is it written by the body that creates it I assume is that a collaborative effort right then of course there's a question of appointing how do you who appoints them it it would make sense that it's the chair of the committee except maybe that doesn't make sense because that's a lot of power in the chair and maybe the chair was that one vote that didn't vote for it right and so I think there's actually a lot of complex logistical questions here and in the end if you have to have a full debate in a committee about whether or not to form a work group and then you have several debates to construct the charge of that work group and then you have debates over who to put in that work group you could talk about like a it could in and given that some committees meet twice a month you could have several months of meetings just getting the work group up and going and and that might not be the best use of everyone's time and so I'd be more than happy to write some language for this but I think there's still a lot of logistical questions outstanding that I don't know that I want to be the sole person answering George these are all very good questions maybe for a few minutes we could try just quickly to give Evan a sense of what the feeling of the other two of us is I would like something that is as easily done as possible a procedure that should not require a great deal of time or I mean not to be thoughtless but that you know the idea of working group is to get some people together and get something to work on something so you want to get it formed fairly quickly you want to get it you know out there and started should it also have a time limit should there be what do we also expect that it would have a terminus point for the next month or two months is that but you need to so what I guess my first thought is whatever we come up with try to keep it simple at all possible and quick and open the least amount of restrictions possible probably set a time limit that you know should be no longer than X months so that if after some arbitrary number three months six months four months two months whatever we decide they need to wrap it up so it doesn't go on so he's depressing the button and my my guidance would be similar to George's in a sense I think from my time on rules and this is where I've struggled difference between ad hoc committees and this the goal of a work group was for that flexibility and quickness creating a committee takes a couple of meetings to make sure you're knowing even an ad hoc sometimes they don't we've done ad hoc night off without charges so a work group is similar to that type of ad hoc committee one that you realize hey people need to work on this let's start now so that flexibility I think I'd like to see the council be able to do it along with the committees but again if it's a council maybe it falls under the ad hoc committee section not the work group committee maybe that's a slight difference is if the council thinks something big needs done form a ad hoc committee if a committee thinks there needs to be a little more that's when the working group comes in I still struggle with who appoints and how quickly that happens because I don't want to see a committee create a work group and that committee appoint only known entities that might be interested I want to in a way see a a open process for applying to be on a work group somehow you some open process to register your interest in it you know that doesn't necessarily mean I want to see it go to OCA for an appointment in terms of that lengthy process because that can elongate things but I don't want it to say you know and and I hate picking on CRC but CRC to come in and say oh we need a work group on this percent for art or half a percent for our bylaw will appoint you you and you because you guys are at today's meeting I don't want to see that happen I'd like to see some sort of we need a work group how do we get applications how do we find interest of people to get on it or recruit experts because there might be an expert that might be interested in serving on a time limited thing but I don't know how best to do that but that's how I want to see an appointment because if the point is to get people involved we need to be stretching who gets involved not going to the same people over and over so that's one of the things I struggle with the most with something like this I think you could leave it to the chair to a point you know if it doesn't work well we could figure that out and and try something about that later and I like a time limited definitely I'd put it at 90 days or 120 some actual three four months somewhere in there from date of creation but I don't know whether that gives you any guidance the one thing I want to go back to is my understanding of an ad hoc committee created by the council is that it is composed exclusively of counselors and I don't see anything in our rules that allows I don't see anything in our rules that prohibits but I also don't see anything that explicitly allows so 10.4 right is ad hoc council committees my read of that would be that it would be these are committees that are composed of counselors and it's interesting because it does say council charges to establish ad hoc committees but I don't think we've ever had a charge for one of our ad hoc committees rules and by law review those are the more long-standing ad hoc ones but so I guess that's my thought on ad hoc committees is that to me anything that the council anything that originates from the council that is called a committee that serves the council is composed of counselors whereas work groups allow for non counselors but this is I mean this is why I'm saying these words committee and work group they don't mean anything until you assign meaning to them and I think that's what we're trying to do here is assign meaning and differentiate so that we throw out terms like we have the OCO committee and then we have the OCO subcommittee on outreach and then there's the OCO work group on you know then then what's differentiating those why right why are these called different things and I think we need some we need to clarify some of those boundaries but your question of did that give me more guidance yeah so it seems like the chair of the committee would appoint do we have a thought on what how I mean majority vote of the committee creates a work group if we're only allowing it to be committees I think I'd favor two-thirds but if the council is I think seven is fine but right as the current draft stands it's not council at all it's just standing our ad hoc committees so if we leave that part in I if we could have two different sections I mean so the other thing is right I could write something up that has a whole lot of things yeah for people to then be like I don't much rather write more and have people cut then have people but what about this what about this right I think that might be a good plan George I think the tougher nut between trying to get something up and running quickly and get some feedback quickly and get some people going and so giving some flexibility and a little bit of almost arbitrary power to the committee as opposed to the usual procedure of creating these bodies which is much more you know plotting open and it's not there's a tension here I guess between trying to get something done and getting people reaching out to people that you think okay this person that person right as opposed to going through a long process of you know notifying the public and making sure everybody's aware and by the time it's all done you know so I guess for me a working group is something that that falls a little below the level of that degree of scrutiny or you know that makes sense I mean it's and yet same time we don't want to give the impression that it's all insider you know baseball it's all you know and I think there maybe there's got to be a level of trust but maybe that's just not possible maybe that just doesn't work but this isn't helping Evan I don't think but and may just have to as you suggest you'll present a number of thoughts that you have some might be a little less some more informal than others and we'll just have to I think maybe start with a lot and then at the next meeting we can figure it out we'll have two more members that might help us right help guide the conversation I guess for me the more flexible the more informal the more that's just me and may not work given other desires which are also important in terms of openness and transparency okay sounds like we're ready to move on we'll put that in I made note that Evan will draft something for our next meeting and we'll add it into the next meeting before we move on to item four on our agenda I'm gonna continue with some items that were added into either I added at request of others so that we can review them and and everyone knows that they're there and then things that might need changed based on a legal opinion that was sent to me yesterday by the town manager on voting quantums since we're on modification of rules item four is continuing a list of discussion but it doesn't really generate rule modifications so I'm gonna run through some of them first the first one is in rule 4.4 the clerk of the council recommended we add the phrase taken by roll call to initiate the meeting just as Sam as what MGL requires but just to clarify that that requires a roll call vote so the second sentence of that one reads the president shall cite the reason and call for a council vote the third sentence reads a majority vote I added the phrase taken by roll call of councillors present and voting at the meeting is necessary to initiate executive session if that can be it if we're all okay with that I'll make note of that the next one beyond all the hyperlinks was the it's part of 5.4 public forums it's the last bullet point the master plan public forum the reference was wrong so I fixed the reference to the charter but I just thought I'd point it out as to why that number changed as I was adding in hyperlinks the next one see rule 8 we dealt with today that's when we discussed and so rule 9 voting requirements and this is where a whole bunch of things needs discussed in rule 9 so the roll call vote that we just talked about that for ex entering into executive session we have a section 9.4 on roll call votes so I added two bullet points all votes to enter into or exit from executive session I will make sure that's the correct reference and add the hyperlink as the comment says and then all votes to release executive session minutes that one was based on the language we just voted so I'm just adding those in if that's okay with everyone to make that clear just another list more comprehensive as to when roll calls need taken and again I'll check the references to make sure they're the right section and then put the right hyperlink in number of votes required so it's got a lot of hyperlinks the items requiring at least two-thirds of counselors present and voting to vote in favor of passage this is what relates to the memo we just received from the town attorney borrowing money chapter 40 the borrowing authorizations and unpaid bills chapter 44 all the chapter 44 references the legal opinion we got which I included in the packet indicates that because of the definition in section one of chapter 44 those votes actually require nine votes because there are two-thirds of the full council not two-thirds of those present and voting so I would like to be able to move those two which are the second and third bullet points under two-thirds of counselors present and voting based on that opinion up to the correct section nine votes based on that legal opinion Evan two bullets the bill with under chapter 44 the two chapter 44 ones the one reads votes on unpaid bills from a previous fiscal year and borrowing authorizations but but 40 section 5v spending money we need to look up I don't know what the definition on stabilizing of majority vote on stabilization is I haven't had the chance and the memo didn't address that one specifically so it if I and I didn't look it up before this meeting if the definition is the same as chapter 44 section one definition I would recommend also moving that one up but I haven't talked to the town about that yet and since it wasn't directly addressed at this point I think we leave it there until we look up the definitions but the second and third ones were addressed in the memo because of the definition so I think at a minimum those should go up into the requiring at least nine votes in favor George and the memo is in the packet yes that's the memo so with everyone's permission I will move those up is there any is there something that we can think of that falls under this last bullet any other council actions that by statute require two-thirds vote of councillors present in voting I don't know enough statutes to that that's why it's in there is the catch all yeah there might not be so are we going back to town attorney and asking about spending money from stabilization I will ask the town manager about whether we have an idea as to where that one would be based on the memo is my thought and also see if we can read find a definition but um but yeah I think that is the only one based on the memo those are the only two at this point that need moved if people read the memo differently any other thoughts at this point on those voting quantum we'll figure out the stabilization fund issue and deal with that one later and then those are the only changes that I needed to point out which brings us I believe unless anyone else has any recommended or any requests for consideration of changes to the rules to item four on our agenda so item four is to begin consideration and discussion of the non-rules of procedure revisions from the follow-up list and the first one that I thought we could discuss is to advise on whether the council should seek a further legal opinion regarding the appointing authority for hybrid committees that aren't mentioned in the charter the example would be an ecac type charge there was some individuals counselors in the rules committee that don't feel the opinion we've received from the town attorney was clear enough on who the appointing authority of committees created by the council that have that are not count committees of the council that are town committees who the appointing authority is specifically for the counselors themselves and thought GLL should discuss whether we wanted to ask the town manager for a further opinion on that Evan so it's been a while since I read the town attorney opinion on that but my memory of it was that it was fairly clear in saying that any committee created any committee that is not a committee of the council and it wasn't didn't have a pointing authority specified in the charter is appointed by the town manager so I'm not quite sure it does not seem like a good use of our town attorney's time nor our resources to get another opinion on that I feel as though that she's been settled do you have any thoughts George no I stand on given that we're a group of three I will weigh in and say I agree with Evans statements and unless there is further just desire from this committee to do that I would say our recommendation in our report out to the town council on this matter would be that we don't advise seeking further legal opinion unless there's further discussion on this we will move to for be begin consideration of whether to create or to create and recommend a policy for resolutions proclamations and citations this is one we may not have time to deal with fully today given that it is about ten minutes till the end of our called meeting and but we should think about maybe either assigning someone to potentially draft some language into a policy and I put this is not a modification of rules because and I'm happy to hear opinions on this I thought it could be similar to a policy that we drafted like the public ways policy but it could also rightfully be listed in the rules I think it depends on what g.o.l. wants as to where to locate such a thing potential sample language and I will reiterate that this was drafted by one member of rules but was not discussed in rules at all was that resolutions and proclamations shall be submitted in writing to the president at least three weeks in advance of an event and proclamations recognizing an individual or organization shall be limited to individuals or organizations residing working or operating in Amherst that was one potential language again not discussed by the rules committee so I can't tell you at all or report at all where what rules thought or where it stood on that one so I think our goal today is to come up with a plan of attack on this policy Evan so as far as whether this is a rule or a policy I don't have a strong opinion I mean 8.1 introduction of bylaws and other measures I mean we do specify what needs to be I mean included in a bylaw it feels like so that section is a non-emergency measures and be emergency measures and there's a little bit of language about bylaws but it seems like that would probably be where this would go if we decided it was part of the rules and I think there's I do think there's a case for it the goal here is to make sure that we get appropriate and timely proclamations resolutions and citations correct yes what were your three words appropriate timely and it was just those two so I guess there's I think the reason this came up was a just in in general some things have we've been seeing a lot of resolutions we've been seeing a lot of proclamations do we want a policy on what ones will consider what ones we want number one and and the sample language just doesn't always address that but are there certain things we don't want to consider as a council and then for things like citations we've done one for some VFW individuals and so a question becomes appropriate what is appropriate for a resolution what is appropriate subject matter what is appropriate subject matter for a citation does it have to be someone who's living in town does it have to be an organization organized in town or not could it be someone who's organized in Hadley or Northampton but does a lot of work in Amherst and is celebrating 50 or 75 years of service you know do we want to create rules or a policy around what should be in front of a council and what shouldn't be or do we kind of want to just make sure it follows 8.1 and let it go beyond that without any sort of rules related to subject matter or location and things like that these up to now these seem to be generated by some entity force power outside of the council my memory correct them no counselor correct me here I've probably forgotten something but no counselors come forward with a proclamation resolution or citation our pride proclamation was a pride thank you that's what I couldn't remember so that would be an example of something that counselors have brought forward to the council but everything else is coming from the outside and it goes to the president is my my sense right it's the president who you know says here's a proclamation here's a resolution here's a citation right I think that's the sort of what's been happening with those coming to the council so I'm imagining somebody bringing something forward and we say no no it's not good enough or it's not you know it's not within the scope or it's not appropriate or it's not timely it does seem sometimes to me that we're just a body that people get to come to and you know and then there may be a fun it may be a good purpose to that it's a chance for them to have something made public I mean I've already voted on some things or one way or the other which I personally would not see is particularly appropriate but I'm not comfortable with creating a set of rules saying what is what is it what are your thoughts do you feel comfortable with kind of is it we're trying to filter things out or we just trying to put some order in this it may just be by nature disorderly people come to us with you know thoughts about flags and about you know whatever and maybe we just have to I don't know and what you're asking us is would someone on this committee want to sit down and sort of wrestle with this in terms of at the moment we're talking just appropriateness and timeliness that's how far in advance of say a specific event should if you want a proclamation should it be in front of us I just think it the reality is that these things just come and it would be sort of kurlish to say nope sorry it's just not in time right it's be nice if things came in a more timely fashion but my senses they tend to come when they come I'm not sure we can create a policy for it and appropriateness I don't know how to define that we're not gonna settle today obviously I'm willing to sit down and think about it but I'm someone who comes from the point of view that you know let a thousand flowers bloom well I just get uncomfortable when we start telling people what they can and cannot proclaim and resolve and say yeah this is actually tougher I think then it originally seemed on its surface so timeliness it makes sense to give the public a deadline right to say look if you want us to consider something for your fly raising we need to we have busy schedules and we need to make sure we fit it in even the proclamations take very little amount of time so it's nice it's nice to have those target timelines right but I also will fully admit that the proclamation that I wrote with Councillor DeAngelo's was received by the president the Thursday before the Monday meeting so I would have 100% violated no we can't accept this so so right I mean to some extent you could have a timeline built in that's like flex I mean you I always tell my students when they ask me to like write them a letter of recommendation you have to give me a deadline or I'm just gonna put it off right but I recognize that that deadline can be flexible appropriateness is really really hard I mean to some extent you don't want to say any citizen out there can write any proclamation and any resolution and then we will take time to talk about it in front of the public right I mean like you but the other hand how do you determine appropriateness right and I don't I don't I really just don't know what the answer is because if you think about you know this is what you're talking about proclamations citations but resolutions are also brought into here I mean if you look at our history with resolutions right this town has made resolutions on a lot of things that are way outside the scope of this town you know nuclear weapons and you know stuff that that would not to me be appropriate for the town to necessarily grapple with but also the public really likes doing right right and I don't want to tell them no and then how do you determine you know a lot of our a lot of our proclamations have come from organizations that are celebrating something right so Amherst a better chance or Amherst education foundation and we love those organizations right but what if it was not that this exists but it was like Amherst right to life is here for their first anniversary and they want the town council to proclaim the first anniversary of Amherst right to life that would be very uncomfortable but it would also be really uncomfortable to say no Amherst education foundation fine you know right and there could be free speech issues in there too and so I don't know how to put limits on it right I mean if you don't put limits if say an Amherst KKK comes with a proclamation if it can be broad in front of us and the vote might go 0 13 0 and there is no proclamation but at least it was in front and and you're not potentially violating the free speech of saying yes we'll hear yours but no we won't hear yours we'll hear it but that doesn't mean we'll pass it yeah so I don't know I don't know what to do with it it's a tough issue that clearly we're not going to solve today do we want to just continue a discussion do we want to assign someone to try and think about maybe a timeliness or do we just maybe just want to say as George was implying it's it's not something we can do we could put someone on looking to see whether like North Hampton or Greenfield or other ones have policies I was going to suggest that that I'd be willing to at least look into it see what's out there if anything and maybe the answer is nothing maybe the answer is some things we could look at but starting from scratch would I think be an enormous waste of our time and energy but we could I'd be willing to do that Evan so now that George has volunteered one thing you might want to just think about so according to the document we have the sample language we have is from Councillor Brewer who was the advocate of this she's also someone who has served a long time in our government and done lots of proclamations and resolutions and so perhaps a first step might be to contact Councillor Brewer and just say GOL doesn't necessarily know if we need this and we don't understand necessarily how we could define these boundaries and she might have some instances of her origination it might be useful to talk to her about it because maybe she has dozens of examples of times when this has been messed up and we just haven't seen them yeah that's a good idea at least do that and then report back to the committee excellent so that is I'm just making notes for next agenda and that takes care of what I had on item four item five is public comment there is no public in the room so by definition there isn't public comment but if it's the only reason why there's no one here to comment publicly we dealt with item six adoption of minutes we will catch up next week so I'll get on those individuals who are drafting the minutes that are outstanding to make sure we have them in time to deal with next week items not anticipated by the chair I don't have any does anyone else have something Evan so just you know so I was not on rules committee there are things that I hope the rules would deal with that they didn't now we hold the rules and so I'm just wondering I really appreciate this future agenda items list it's always good to sort of have an idea of what's on horizon if I was to say want something on that future agenda items this would it be appropriate to just email just you know me yes and I'll put it on George you said next week sorry it's not next week it's July 10th I think 11 10 10 I think it's the Wednesday yeah just July 10th is the Wednesday so it's July 10th we're not in August yet yeah if there's nothing else not anticipated by me it is a motion to adjourn or though I guess as chair I can just declare us adjourned I will declare us adjourned at 12 28 p.m.