 Thank you Pamela and welcome Ivan I see that you're connecting take your time. And so I think Pamela just bringing Lauren over as the last person we may we still need to bring over while we're waiting if I might say something. Sure, go I didn't call the meeting to order yet. Dr. Spitzer if you wanted to be on the record, you'll want to wait but if not please go ahead. Just to say that at the last in Cobra meeting I attended was encouraged to kind of infuse our work with something from the from our African heritage and one of those is giving libations tie ancestors, and one the best I'd like to give libation to and I, I beg Debra's support on this is Perry Roberts junior. Perry Roberts junior was born in April of 1862 in eastern Maryland. This is during the Civil War. And of course, at a time in which Maryland was still a slave state. And Perry Roberts was able to get out of Maryland soon as soon as he could and was found his way into Michigan, but by the 1880s found his way into Massachusetts. John Charles Roberts was born in 1887 here in Massachusetts, and Perry Roberts went on to have numerous other children of which others who also gave birth to children who also gave birth to our beautiful Debra Bridges that is here with us today I hope you don't mind but I'd like to offer libation and remembrance of Perry Roberts today. Thank you Dr. Shabazz Debra I see your mouth is moving but I can't hear you. Um, thank you that we've done that many many times with our ancestors going back a few years. And he was my great grandfather. So the father of my grandfather Gilbert Roberts so yes every year we do this with our ancestors and our family from Amherst just so it's known, but thank you. Thank you both. Okay, so I'm going to go ahead and call the meeting of the African Heritage Reparation Assembly to order at 1206 p.m. Monday, August 1 pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 this meeting will be conducted via remote means. Public who wish to access the meeting may do so via zoom or by telephone. No in person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time via technological means. Thank you so. Pamela, can you hit the record button, please. I did record. Yeah. Okay, thank you. That's all. And Dr. Shabazz and Debra were on the recording I just hadn't called the meeting to order yet. Okay, so we're just going to do a quick sound check I'm going to go through and just a just call on each person that's in the room. If you could just state your that you are present and can hear us and be heard that would be wonderful. And I will start with you, Hala. I'm present. Can you hear me. Can hear you. And Paul. I'm present and I'll be present for the first 1520 minutes and jump to another meeting. Thank you. Thank you for being here, Paul. Really appreciate it. Thank you. And Pamela. Yes, I'm present and can hear everyone. Excellent. Dr. Shabazz. Yes, Shabazz. I think I'm audible. Devon. Hi everyone. Yes, I'm here and I can hear and hear everyone. Thank you and thank you for being here and welcome. And Ms. Bridges. I'm here and I can hear everyone. Good. Okay. And Yvonne. Yes, I'm here. I can hear everyone. Excellent. And attorney Goldberg or Lauren, if you prefer. Lauren is just fine. I can hear everyone. Thank you for having us today. Thank you. Thank you so much for both agreeing to be here in such short, a short notice. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, everyone. Hi, everyone. I'm here and I can, I definitely can hear. Okay. Good. And Alexis. Hi, everyone. Hi, everyone. Okay. Good. So we are all here. We can all be heard and here. And so we're going to jump right in to our first agenda item. Since we have Lauren and Devon here. So we have sent over the weekend some questions that I raised to Lauren in response to our conversation that we had about the special legislation. Last week. And so this is going to be an opportunity for Lauren and Devon to answer those questions. And also just free form, whatever questions folks might have here. To be able to pose them. I think this is the last time or the only time that we'll have the opportunity to speak, but it's. So, you know, we want to just be mindful of our time and use it to our best ability, keeping in mind that we have a town council meeting coming up on the 15th. And the purpose of the agenda item in that meeting will be to, to discuss the process that Lynn brought forward to our last meeting. So we're going to start with Lauren and Devon. So sort of keeping that in your mind as we move through here. So if it's okay with members of the HRA, I'm going to turn it over to Lauren and Devon to maybe take the questions that I've already sent. Lauren, if you'd like me to put them on the screen, I can share screen, but you let me know what works for you. And you're muted. Once a meeting, everybody knows that's the rule. I'll try not to do it again. I'll put them up that's fine. I think maybe that'll help frame our, our discussion. Sure. Okay. Let me just see here. There we go. Here we go. Okay. So I am going to share here. I think I should have the ability to share Pamela, but let's see. Okay. Does everyone see the screen? My screen. Okay. Great. So these are the questions that I sent based on our last discussion. But again, we can ask additional questions of Lauren, Devon and expand on these questions. And I will know that Irv sent. An amendment to me to one of the questions. And when we get to it, we can discuss that. So I'll hand it over to you now. Thank you. Thanks. Okay. And thank you. As I said, thank you for having us here. It is obvious that you all have been doing a significant amount of work. And Devon and I obviously are kind of. Coming in to try and help you accomplish what it is that you want to accomplish. There are a few issues under the Massachusetts constitution that have to be considered when trying to, um, make private, uh, to make payments, direct payments to individuals. And so if the town itself is going to, and Devon, please jump in anytime. I see you're still muted. If, um, if the town itself is going to be raising money and spending that money for the purpose of making direct grants to individuals, that will absolutely require special legislation. And the reason is that, um, the anti aid amendment to the Massachusetts constitution and the so-called public purpose rule specifically say we can't, um, I'm paraphrasing, but we can't give money to that would benefit an individual or a, um, or a group that would primarily benefit the individual or the group rather than the public as a whole. Um, there are several statutes that try to kind of make clear. Well, what is the public good and how do we achieve that? And there's some case law as well. And again, it comes down to kind of a case by case review of. Whether the benefit that's being given benefits the public more than it benefits the individual or the entity. Um, so originally we pointed this out and we basically said, you know, there may be some other ways to, um, to approach this, but if that is a goal, then we do think special legislation is the way to go. Um, of course, our advice is always based on, um, you know, the, the standards that we're thinking about, which are will this be challenged? If it's challenged, will it survive a challenge? Um, and, and our angle on that is of course that we're paid to worry. Um, but we're also, you know, our job is to also help you achieve what you're looking to achieve. And so we gave you some different ideas on the way that might be able to be achieved. Um, you know, we've reviewed the Evanston process and I saw that, um, that, you know, they gave 25,000 dollars in, in home ownership grants to individuals. Um, it, that example though includes that follow-up that says the city distributed the funds to a bank who in turn distributed the funds to the recipients. And so that's essentially, um, an agree, well, we, we would assume we don't know for sure, but that that was like a grant agreement between the city and the bank and then the bank carried out the agreement, the, that portion of the agreement. Um, we of course don't know what the municipal finance laws are in Evanston or the state laws about spending, um, spending municipal funds. Um, however, we do think that, uh, it's important to know in Massachusetts that the, the Department of Revenue, um, Devin, is this a fair statement discourages, um, grant agreements that, um, are, are to provide benefits just to individuals, as we've said, so that when we do a grant agreement under the Community Preservation Act, for example, we take municipal funds and in return we have an interest in that building or we have an easement in that privately owned land so that the municipality itself, um, is getting, and I'm going to use the term value, but I mean like a tangible, um, asset back from that individual. Um, because of that, uh, because of DOR's, um, discouragement because of the potential for challenges, essentially where we wound up was you, you have, um, I'm trying to think of the right way to say this, um, anything can be challenged and we know that we can't, um, insulate everything from challenge even if we wanted to, people still challenge things for various reasons. But the bottom line from our perspective is the most protective way to proceed with a program to provide reparations, um, you know, is likely through the special legislation. Now what can you do? You say here, direct benefits including that limited to and you go through a list. That's correct. That's the special legislation would be for that. Um, educational scholarships are also regulated by law and I think we pointed this out a bit ago. It's 60 C section three, I believe I can see Devin checking right now, see her at work. Um, so you accept the, the council would accept the statute and create the scholarship. Um, what it allows is essentially the, um, raising of funds on the town's tax bills. Um, it's a voluntary check off that allows that and you would need in order to raise money from, you know, as part of a town action, um, in order to be able to give out those scholarships. That's how that's how that would work. Is there a different way to do to do this? There probably is and we'll talk about that in a in a minute. Um, community benefits not directed at an individual. So again, and I think, um, Devin, do you want to talk about, uh, the harm part of this? And you know, what we were, um, what we, what we are thinking about, um, you know, how to approach, uh, the distribution of the actual distribution of funds. Or just, just briefly, and I think your questions touched on it a little bit too, and in what Evanston, Illinois did, but it is really important. Um, whether you're going, you know, the special legislation route or not, um, no matter what to tie each benefit to a, the remediation of a past harm. Um, and I know that some of the research that you, that was done and that we've cited a little bit in the special legislation really did that. Um, but the more you can beef up that remediation and how each, each potential payment, whether it be a scholarship, uh, grant agreement, each sort of avenue is tied to a particular harm, remediation of a particular harm and really tying those, those things together will set us up. Um, you know, nicely, nicely to defend a challenge on, on how those are connected and why, why we pick scholarships, why we pick home ownership grants. Was there a huge history of, of redlining in Amherst or, or a history of discrimination in education and how those are, are really connected and having a little bit of research to back those up would be really helpful. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you, Devin. Um, and as you probably saw in the draft legislation, we did try to tie, um, the, uh, draft directly to harm that has been caused. Um, but that's going to be a pervasive theme. And, you know, in terms of how to decide on what, what type of reparations, what types of, of, um, donations or rep, rep, I'm sorry, not donations, what types of agreements to enter into that further those very issues. Um, now, interestingly enough, private donations are subject to different rules. Always have been. And, and what it essentially is, is that when a donation is made to a city or town under, um, chapter 44 section 53A, it's considered a grant to the town and the town functions as a trust that the, the, um, gift functions as a trust. So sometimes people may leave money in a will and it might be for education and, um, and, um, you know, gifts to individuals. Okay. Well, what does that mean? What did the grand tour mean? Those are the only things we can spend the money on. So there are, there are lots of grant, um, and be quests around that left money, um, to help the poor or to, um, provide housing for abandoned children. Um, and you'll see towns even today voting how to spend that money. And it's not what we would typically call a public purpose, although obviously there is a public purpose in expending the money in that way. So here, if there were to be, um, donations and the donations were made to the town in a particular gift account that specified what they might be used for, then the town as the, you know, hope as, as that, um, as the, the holder of that trust will be able to dispense those monies in the appropriate way, consistent with the agreement. I mean, consistent with the donation. We run into trouble with grant, I'm sorry, with, with donations to the town. I'll call them donations so that we don't get back talking about grant agreements. The donations, if they are very limited, if they list a specific purpose and they do not explain, you know, kind of and provide flexibility, then that is the only thing we can spend the money for. And we'll see, um, you know, C pray petitions be filed in court to try and get additional authority because it's impossible to comply with those, you know, with those, um, limitations that were imposed by the donor. So one of the things that we've, we've done in the past is try to work to create a gift account where anyone who wants money to be spent by the town for X purpose can make a donation. And that account has the essential rules about how that money will be spent and what would happen if there's money, quote unquote, leftover, et cetera. Um, that, you know, in that circumstance, um, the, the council has the right to decide should we accept this gift? Okay. So it would, let's say that the gift was made, um, to the, the assembly as a donation to that fund, right? To the fund we're talking about the council would decide, does this gift essentially meet the requirements of the fund? And if so, then the count, the assembly would be authorized to expend it in a manner consistent with the gift. And the reason that that's important is that I'll, I'll use an example that seems a little silly, but there was a town that, um, was not providing a foreign language, uh, learning in grade six and a group of parents decided that they wanted that foreign language learning in group six in grade six. And so they made a donation to the town to pay the salary and, and, um, benefits of that person and the school committee said, no, thank you. We don't want that gift because although we would love to be able to provide that kind of additional learning, we're going to make our own decisions on what we're going to do and we're not going to let an outside group tell us how to do that. And so they rejected that gift. Now, if they had given it to the town, or to the school committee for, um, supplementing, um, supplementing educational opportunities for students through X, Y, or Z, then it's less directed. And even though the parents who are donating may have wanted it to go for, you know, grade six, um, language learning, they would still have the discretion to use it for that broader purpose. So here, if you are receiving gifts from various people with various, um, limitations or conditions, it may be very difficult to administer regardless of whether there's a committee dedicated to that or there is an outside group that's created to, to handle these. So for that purpose, you may want to think about what type of gift account, and I can send you guys over some language to take a look at. We've been playing around with that a little bit here. Um, so that's, that's something you can do. And it is not subject to the public purpose rule and the, um, and the, uh, anti-aid amendment. However, and again, I think this is the most important, the town gets to choose through the council, whether to accept the gifts. Um, so, so that's one thing that you can do. Um, and the manner in doing it may still be, um, something where, uh, the town feels and the assembly feels requires that those lines be drawn between harm and benefit. And so, you know, for each type of, um, benefit that's provided, it may be useful to have a finding, you know, purpose. Why are we doing this? What have we found? We have these local findings that we've based on our own research and, you know, area research, et cetera. And because of that, you know, the assembly believes that it's consistent with those findings to spend the money as the gift or the donor. Or the donor has outlined and then move on from there. So that is possible. Um, it is possible to do that. It is possible to enter into grant agreements. And ultimately, um, even without the special legislation, the level of risk in terms of whether something might be challenged and whether it might be defensible or really what's kind of on the other side of that. And I don't know about Evanston, but one of the things, you know, it sounds like the, uh, the city made, uh, made it a priority and they threw some resources behind it. And certainly, you know, I could see Amherst doing the same. Again, the place where we come from is the risk level. We just want you to know, you know, certain things are riskier than others and more difficult to defend. But ultimately those policy decisions are the towns and not ours. And we will work to help facilitate whatever outcome it is that you all are looking for. Excellent. Thank you, Lauren. That was very helpful. Um, and just looking at the time, I think what would be best here is I'm going to stop the share. And I'm going to go ahead and open it up to the assembly for questions. Um, I think that you and Devin covered basically everything that was on the list that I sent. Um, I have a quick follow up, but I'll, I'll hold that. Um, and just see if we have any hands from assembly members who would like to jump in and ask some questions now. So please go ahead and raise your hand if you have a question. And I see Dr. Rhodes has his hand up. So the floor is yours, Dr. Rhodes. It would be, um, Good. If I could hear some response to the, uh, questions or, um, Um, I guess what I did is I read, um, restated the questions that you had for the question that you had put together, Michelle. Yeah. I would like to hear a response from that from these two, uh, Attorneys. Yeah. I'm going to pull that up again real quick here and just, um, please verify, um, Dr. Rhodes, that this is what we're talking about in blue here. Is that right? Okay. So Lauren and Devin, can you see that? Um, this was the third, um, bullet under the clarity question. Okay. Great. Um, I wish that there was a yes or no answer to these questions. And, um, for quite a while, um, I've been, um, Trying to, to help explain in a way that's, um, That's, um, that's balancing all of these different issues that we're talking about the legal issues, the policy issues. If there are community benefits. And the, the town believes that they are, um, A public good. Then the town essentially is making a donation. I'm sorry, making grant agreements. With entities for support and stimulation of the public good. So what I think of it as a public good and what, you know, someone else may think of as a public good may not be the same thing. The test to decide if it is the public good, which means it's not subject to the anti-aid amendment is if the benefit accrues generally to the public good. And only incidentally to the person to receive the gift or the entity that is managing the gift. And so it really is more of a case by case. Now you gave us some ideas here. Um, directed towards a youth empowerment center. Certainly if, um, the, The concept is that the town is going to, um, To fund the creation of a youth empowerment center as a way of doing reparations. I mean, to me, based on just what we're looking at here, The town could do that. The town can create a youth empowerment center. It can raise money for that purpose. Connecting it to reparations. That's the policy part. That's, and that's the part. The, the concept is that the town is going to raise money. To fund the creation of a youth empowerment center as a way of doing that. And that's the part that you all really care about. We get that. Um, but I don't see that there would be a problem trying to, um, Establish a youth empowerment center for the town to, or for the town to essentially give a grant to a private entity for the purpose of doing that. Um, we would always recommend that there be a grant agreement, Dr. Rhodes. So the grant agreement would say essentially this is what they would do. We would talk about the project if we were going to make a grant. And what would happen if they didn't, we would talk about how to manage money and what kind of reporting requirements there might be. Um, so that's something we would work through. Um, victims compensation fund. So I think that's, um, kind of, that goes back a little bit in the other direction because. Um, the compensation fund is going to result in individuals receiving money. And so even if we do kind of what the, the city of Evanston did, and we pass it through appropriately another entity. We're looking to take public money and directly give it to individuals directly or individual or indirectly. Um, if it was challenged that a judge says, yeah, we have enough connection here between harm and remedy for this to be in the public good. But that would be our job to demonstrate. If we had special legislation. It's easier. We don't have to wonder. Um, we don't have to, to defend. We have a law that says that, but that doesn't mean that you, you don't have to be a judge to pursue. Um, and so, uh, Other nonprofits. Um, again, the answer to that last part of the restatement is. It depends. Um, I think what, what is probably. Um, A worthwhile way to think about this is. What. What are you looking to accomplish? And when is there a short term goal? Is there a midterm goal? Is there, you know, a longterm goal? And I know that council has already taken action at, um, you know, with your support to create the stabilization fund, et cetera. That is action that moves things forward. Um, and that was something that the town could do right then. We didn't need to wait for special legislation to be able to set aside money for future spending. The question of whether that future spending would be challenged is really what we're talking about here. And how to kind of connect the dots between the purpose that, that we're putting this money aside for. And the purpose for which we're spending it. Well, Does that also relate to, um, The assembly, um, granting money to the schools. Okay. So that's a great question. Um, the school is a public entity. And so the, um, the use of public funds for public purposes is permitted. And so, you know, giving money to the schools is permitted. Um, the town in fact raises money for the school system every single day and pays for education every single day. So yes, I think money could be allocated. I would say instead of, um, donated, it could be allocated to the school for X, Y, or Z purposes. And then that brings us right back to what we were talking about with it's up to the school to decide whether they're comfortable accepting it for those purposes. Thank you. You're welcome. Yeah. And Dr. Rhodes, thank you for raising that really important point about the schools, um, in that, in that, um, that's really interesting. Um, okay. I see Dr. Shabazz. Good afternoon. Thank you to the attorneys that worked on this. Do I understand both of you contributed to the writing of the doctor? Well, I enjoyed reading it. I, uh, I found the way the, the language to be very compelling, uh, and very much matching what we've been, uh, trying to articulate as a, uh, as a town, uh, as a unit of the town, the town assembly, the question, I have two quick questions. One is, is there a downside that either of you see in pursuing the home rule, uh, special public purpose legislation as you all, as you all have written understanding what we're trying to accomplish here. Is there a downside? Um, is it going to be prohibitively expensive to do? You know, could you talk a little bit in that and then I'll follow up with a second if the chair allows. Um, so special legislation is not expensive. We send it to the general court. I think the downside is that this is a controversial concept as we know. And, um, the state may say, Hey, hands off. If we're going to do this, we're doing it statewide. We don't want to do this on a case by case basis. Um, as you know, for example, right now, all of the state legislature is running for reelection. So it wouldn't be a good time to, um, to submit a bill of this nature and expect anything to happen with it. Um, on the other hand, having that discussion at the state level could be progress. And so that's again, kind of a value judgment. Um, if it, if it isn't passed, what could happen? Senate council or house council could say this is unconstitutional. And here's why we, as you know, have the belief that we can make a good argument about why it's not unconstitutional. Nevertheless, that kind of elevates it, right? To that next step in terms of the reasons or the ability to make a good argument about why it's not unconstitutional. And so that's one of the challenges. Now we have, you know, something from the Massachusetts house or Senate council that says, Hey, we don't think this is constitutional. Um, and so that's one thing. Um, the other is that it takes a while to get special legislation under any circumstances. And so pursuing the special legislation may be one part. Of a total strategy. But if it is the only part of the strategy, it's not what you're doing, but that is the downside of that. Um, you know, and again, whether it passes, whether it's submitted, whether it's supported, all of that is a discussion about. Um, you know, whether the state is essentially going to say Amherst has defined its values and its goals as this. And we have the ability to say. Amherst, that's you. You can do that under the home rule amendment. We are going to, even if we don't agree, we're going to pass it. That's what Amherst wants. Um, or they could take a different position and, you know, and say we're not going to, to pass this. It's completely within our discretion about whether to do so. We either want to have a statewide discussion or we want to see other communities that are looking to do this. Um, and so, you know, that could be their reaction. It's a little bit like, you know, is, is bad press. Good for an actor. And sometimes actors will say any press is good. It doesn't matter if it's bad or good. My name is out there. So I think in some ways that's, it's a, it's a terrible analogy, but I think you understand what I'm saying that, you know, it could go either way. We can't predict. And all we could do, um, meet with your state rep, meet with your state senator, make a presentation, make a presentation. And then you can show them the work that you've done. And I'm sure they're already aware, but, but do it with the targeted focus of asking them to submit this on, on the town's behalf. Um, and, you know, and, and that, that would be a start. Um, but certainly just a first step and only one. On this path that you're on. Thank you. Uh, madam chair. Is it okay? Absolutely. Um, I'm looking at your window there. You're, so you're in bean town. Yeah. Well, the next time I'm around, if you'd like, I, I would love to buy you a tea, some tea or a coffee or something. That's a very excellent straightforward answer. I think it does, you know, for my part, and I'm just one within the assembly, you know, I think there could be value in Amherst being the, the catalyst for a statewide conversation. If it should go in that direction as I currently, uh, have my sense of the pulse of the statewide conversation. Uh, we're not there yet. Uh, the big cities of Boston and Springfield and Worcester, just are, are moving a little more like a turtle. Uh, on this, on this matter right now. And so little Amherst could be a catalyst to, to move toward. I've always said in this body from the very beginning, the community preservation act looms very strongly in my mind as a kind of model. And of course that came as a statewide action in local municipalities could opt into or not. That is my vision. If we could get a statewide, uh, um, uh, something like the community preservation act or reparations act that would, um, provide matching funds and have the state on the side of municipalities that want to do this type of work. But again, we can either stay the little turtle here and just pursue things, you know, in our own little, little bailiwick or we can be that, that bold turtle that, that acts as a catalyst to statewide action. So anyway, that's my position. But the second question is this. Um, we have heard, uh, heard a lot. And I hear it in California as I've tracked the California reparations, uh, uh, efforts at the statewide level. Uh, I've heard it and we've had it come up again locally. Um, people will, uh, our inquiries, folks have often reference affirmative action law and the litigation against it. And of course with a court right now, just taking the unprecedented, after 50 years, to overturn Roe v Wade and, and likely in the next session of the court to try to put the, the nail in the coffin on Bakke and affirmative action, uh, race based affirmative action. Let me say, say, it sounds like, you know, anything that smacks of that kind of approach legally is will face a very difficult, if not just, you know, dead on arrival kind of thing. But I've always said, what we're doing in reparations is not race based. It is not race based as affirmative action, alabaki was, it is instead an approach that looks at a specific harm against a specific group that happens to have an ethnic and ethno historical characteristic, but that it really has nothing to do with this madness called race. It has to do with addressing a harm against a specific ethno historically defined community in the present. And so if we look at what was done and signed into law by Ronald Reagan, of all people, in terms of Japanese internment in concentration camps. In the 1940s and yet 40 years later, they passed law signed by Ronald Reagan to directly indemnify every survivor 25,000 a check. Okay, but nobody screamed that that was race based anything. Instead, it was the addressing a harm against a specific ethno historical community that experienced that harm. And we do that. So, but if you could just opine a bit on this affirmative action, anti affirmative action logic, as it relates to what we're trying to do do you see that it that we run into that brick wall or, or do you see it in a different way. Thank you. Go ahead, Devin, it looks like you're going to take this time. That's really great and I'm pointing it out. I think so we have been looking at the affirmative action line of case law, just to sort of frame. We don't have, we don't have a reparations based line of case law, and it's just sort of the most similar challenge we've seen in the past that we really model off of and to try to proactively remedy some of the arguments and challenges that have been made to race based affirmative action policies and and they're constantly being challenged at the district court level and federal courts across the country so there are a lot of really good sort of legal frameworks and not even just legal frameworks but sort of fact, like factual development research development harm. This concept to harm that we are looking at and it so I will say it, I don't want it to be discouraging but it is our best legal framework to sort of look at in terms of gearing up for a challenge. We can, can beef up the facts and the research and and we have that legal framework in mind then we have a good defense to and if an anti affirmative action based group comes along and wants to try and challenge this, which I'm sure they, you know, would gear up as potentially challenging across the country. There will be in a good position using that legal framework, because we do have there is a long history and a lot of case law on on affirmative action in challenges in Massachusetts and across the country. So it is something we would be looking at. We are trying to also get creative with bringing reparations outside of the affirmative action context because it is different and and it's important to try and distinguish, distinguish it from the case saw on that while still at least using that because that's all we have so far that the courts are really going to look at is my best. Thank you, Devin. That is, that is exactly what I would have said. Yeah, I want to add, you know, obviously, as lawyers we look at this, and we see legal issue legal issue legal issue, you know, a lot of red flags that, you know, we could anticipate challenges from a number of different directions. I can't say and I never do, but I can, I definitely can't say here that this approach would be immune from challenge or immune from, you know, from being being overturned. It's as I think, you know, we've been talking about today. The question is not as much of what can we, is this, is this a race based decision making it's to show that there is harm. And I think Michelle you're the one who in your email that kind of phrase it like this and Devin and I were like, oh, that's what we were doing that there's harm based injury that needs to be remedied, and that is a public purpose. And we do spend money as a town and as a state and as a country to remedy harms. So our job would be to be very creative. And I think, you know, again I think you all are the ones that have started that ball rolling. Devin and I just kind of like hopped on to try and make something in words that kind of matched your intent. There's no question to me. The less this has to do with individuals, the less that has to do with, with particular people, the more likely we are to be able to defend it. Redlining, for example, was, you know, a bad result for everyone. And that may not be the appropriate metric for you all. And I get that. But it is a metric that there may be familiarity with or comfort with at the state level at the federal level so you know again I think some of this is hard because it's, you know, you can you can want to do something for all the right reasons and people can't hear you and then it doesn't matter. And so we're in a situation of trying to balance being able to be heard within an existing framework. And in a, in a way that we're willing to take a risk. So, again, we understand you are all on, you know, walking a very thin line here in terms of how to make this defensible going forward. And you do not need the special legislation to remedy harm to the public good. And there is, as Devin pointed out, you've done a lot of research on that, and you probably could do more. There's probably more research out there, including in the legal world where, you know, a lot of these cases cite facts and those are facts that the court has relied on. We don't want to be discouraging and we don't want to be saying, you know, halt you cannot do that of course you can. The question is, is it defensible, and how much energy, money effort, do you want to put in that part of this fight, versus other parts, and we can't answer that for you. Thank goodness. So we're just going to sit on the sideline and when you all decide, our job is to facilitate that outcome. We want you to know what our thoughts are so that you can make good decisions on what you're willing to, to deal with. And that's very different than us saying no, you can't do that because neither Devin nor I feel that nor would we allow any kind of policy making direct our advice to you on this. You are the policymakers. All we're doing is looking at the potential repercussions and making sure you know so that you can move forward in a way with a level of risk that you're comfortable with that you think is appropriate under the circumstances. Thank you Lauren and thank you for being such a straightforward and energetic partner in this process really really appreciate it. We're excited to be on this trip with you obviously this is very exciting. No matter what whether from a legal perspective, history perspective, it doesn't matter I sent Paul. And I was like, this is very well draft I think on July 4 or I finished it on July 4. And I was like, this is, this is very fitting. So, you know, we're glad to be apart so thank you. Thank you. And so just want to see if there are any other questions at this time and like I said, I don't think this will be the last time we'll get to speak with Lauren and Devin. But if you do have a question before Lauren and Devin leave if you could raise your hand now that would be great. I guess I just have one quick question with regards to maybe in this case it's just considered nomenclature but so I hear what you're saying in that there's more success in not gearing this towards individuals, and not gearing it towards race but I guess I'm wondering when it comes to law and when it comes to this nomenclature, what's the difference between saying folks of African ancestry who have received this harm and people who are politically identified as black who continue to experience. So I guess I'm wondering in terms of harm and in terms of like persistent harm now I guess where is that long line drawn and I can see that there's a preference clearly but like I guess I'm wondering legally where like why. So that's a great question and I think it really gets to the very heart of what it is that we're talking about nomenclature matters right we've we've seen that we know that. And people's ideas about that nomenclature also matter. In the biggest picture. The, the risk of making a decision that expressly relies on a race based decision making is going to be subject to challenge under the under the Constitution. So by us trying, and again, if that's what you all want to do, we think there are arguments, but if we already know that the public good can benefit from, you know, grants, and to first supplies supplies and services for what is it is a devinance left my head stimulation and support of the public good. So we know that that's an easier road to go down. Now, my, my, our intent in a draft that we did was to come to some kind of a middle ground there. And that middle ground was meant to be respectful of the idea in the con in the US and in the Massachusetts Constitution that says the public money can't be spent to, to enrich individuals or organizations, more than they help society or help the public good. And so we tried to balance that and that's the research part of that. Here is the harm that people and Amherst have suffered. So can we say African American, of course we can, we can say, we can absolutely say that, but I still think in order to survive a challenge and constitutional scrutiny that what we have to do is be able to say, we're talking about this harm with a particular group because it's historically proven fact, as compared to because a person has a different color skin or is perceived as having a different color skin. So we're trying to walk a line that's a little, a little bit of both. Again, to put it forward in a way that gets that moves this conversation forward in directly, not indirectly directly moves it forward, but that also has those components that make it defensible from a legal perspective. Alexis, did that answer your question. Okay, and I think also what I heard in there what you were saying is the persistent harm so the harm that's still occurring and so we're not necessarily looking back at past harm or historical harm we're actually looking at what's happening in the present and without a stop to that will continue into the future and so how do we address that as well. Yeah, that's a great point and I should have started off by saying, I learned a lot from working on this in terms of nomenclature, but and and the ways of categorizing, you know, the situation that has existed for so long and continues to exist in our country. We, as I said, are kind of on the sideline of the decision making. And so the important things that you want to be addressed. Tell us, teach us, you know, so that we can get it right when we write it down. You know, definitely open a feedback it's something I thought about a lot when we were drafting and revising the legislation what is the right nomenclature what is the right way to say this are we talking about the past are we talking about the present individuals groups. All of that so you know please don't be offended if I if I spoke incorrectly. My goal is to make happen what you all want to happen and to use the words that you want us to use so we are definitely open and willing to be to be informed and educated. Thank you, Lauren. Well, anybody else might have a question that they're holding I just have a quick follow up to the gift fund. You said that the council would have to agree to assume the gift. The gift has been made so let's say somebody comes forward they say we'd like to make a gift to the reparations fund, and it can be spent on any purpose that whatever body is deciding whatever black heritage body deciding wants to use it they can use it that way. So it's sort of flexible. Does the town council still have to vote by a two thirds vote to take the money out of the fund as in with the stabilization fund. It's a great question and the answer is no, it does not require two thirds vote of the council. The council's job is to say yes, we accept this gift for the purpose for which it's been given. And, and then, however, it, you know, whatever entity received the money as a gift whatever entity of the town has the ability to spend it in a manner that's consistent with that gift. Now, I do think it's important to to specify there's a difference between and you just said that there's a reparations stabilization fund right now. That is a town that is municipally raised money. What we're talking about is a gift account. And so in some ways, the gift account and I was, I was alluding to this earlier, we can create the gift account to address the variables that you all are dealing with and some of which is a special act to create a committee to require public notice all that stuff we can have that be part of the gift fund rules. And so then, once the council accepts, then the gift fund rules kick in, and they can be expended the money can be expended for those purposes. It can be too general, because if it's too general it's like we're just giving a pot of money to be spent, even if we're saying you know for school purposes or for reparations purposes, but it can't be too limiting either and I do think that once you have an idea about how you might want to spend this money, then Devin and I can get to the work of actually saying it in a way that reflects what your goals are. You think that we can do that. And that then means that anybody who donates money to the reparations gift fund would expect it to be used in a manner consistent with the rules applicable to the gift. It doesn't mean other people couldn't make donations to the town generally. That someone could fundraise for the same purpose at a private entity, but if they make the donation to that fund, then once it's approved to be accepted, it can be expended in whatever way the, the, you know, the town plans to have that work. Perfect, perfect. Thank you so much and I see it's almost three o'clock so I want to thank you both for being here. If there aren't any other questions, let you get back to your day and really thanks again for turning around so quickly and being here and showing up and we look forward to more conversations with both of you. Again, thank you for having us and for, you know, involving us in this and we appreciate the time you've invested and the level of care that you're putting into this so thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. I am going to go ahead and call public comment, seeing that it's three o'clock so that we can just get that out of the way and then I'll do we'll do a check in on time with everyone. Okay. So I am, I'm, hang on, let me just get my statement. I'm calling public comment and during the public comment period the chair will recognize members of the public and called on please identify yourself by stating your full name pronouns and residential address. The President's are welcome to express their views for up to three minutes at the discretion of the chair based upon the number of people who wish to speak. They will not engage in a dialogue or comment on a matter raised during public comment generally but sometimes we will. And we'll definitely be listening. So if you'd like to make a public comment please raise your hand now. I see we have one attendee in the audience and that person would not like to make public comment it doesn't look like. Excellent. Okay. So, let's just I just quickly wanted to do a time check when we scheduled this meeting I had asked for everyone to be able to stay until 330 today and so is 330 still possible for everybody here. Thumbs up would be fine. I might have to leave it like 315. Okay, that's possible. I have to gauge I'm supposed to meet someone. At four o'clock and I'm waiting for them to call me back to see if that's a thing and it would take me half an hour to get there. So, if they call back then I might have to leave. You're out. Get there in time. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Totally. Okay. Well, while you're still here, Yvonne, just in case we get deep into discussion is next Monday at the same time 2pm. Good for everybody for our next meeting. Any conflicts with that? I don't know what the internet access will be where I am at but I will tune in if I can. What's that? Michelle. That's a good question. I think it will be. Yeah, I, I, I cannot do it that day. Okay. I'll be in Cambridge. Okay. Yeah. Okay. So that's two people who may or may not be able or one who definitely won't be here. One who may not be able to be here. Would the group like to move our meeting to the 15th or would the folks Dr. Shabaz and I see your hand is raised. Okay, bro, you could finish your thought. I was just going to say, I thought maybe you had an idea that would help us. But I was going to say, I'm happy to meet on Monday. If there's, if there's at least four of us, we can continue to meet. But if the group would like, we can try to find another day next week or we can wait until the 15th. And so. The 15th would be more ideal just very briefly. I will be leaving in a few days to go to the, to Columbia, the Republic of Columbia. I will be at the inauguration of the new government there, president and vice president, and also attending a national conference there on reparations. But I should be back by the 15th. I don't know what the connection will be like it's possible. I could do it if you all do move forward with next Monday, but I won't know until I'm in country, what my possibilities are. I think I'm going to just make the call that will move the meeting to the 15th if that works for everyone. I think that would be best. Okay. So we'll do two o'clock on the 15th. If something comes up in the meantime, please just let me know. And so now that we've gotten that out of the way. I did want to just I wanted to report that everything in terms of follow up for a mass humanities grant was successfully submitted and accepted. So we're good with that. I don't think we're going to get a response until September. So we've got about a month and a half before we'll find out anything from that from that group. And so I really wanted to give us an opportunity with the time we had left to dig into community engagement a bit. I really just surface level wanted to say that I would very much like to get an engage Amherst page up, even if it's just to provide information out and not necessarily collect information, but taking that a step further. I wondered what the group thought about having a space where people could give their input and not necessarily have it be a live feed, because I know we've discussed multiple times. I don't know what sort of challenges that may cause, but would at least be able to get messages to the assembly and any other thoughts on that. And I'm just realizing, I want to say the special legislation conversation. I think we actually need to spend some time right now completing that conversation because if we, let me just see, hang on. Actually, okay, so the town council meeting is on the 15th. So that's the next time we'll be meeting and we'll want to have a plan and be able to have provided feedback to Lynn about the process that she proposed. So we could do that now. And then on the 15th, just do community engagement, or we can wait if we want to let the legislation stuff process, we can come back to it on the 15th but we'll have only a short or a short turnaround to let Lynn know, you know, what our thoughts are so my thinking is we should try to have a conversation about what we feel on the process that Lynn proposed. If we can right now, at least for, but but I'm open to what you all would like to do with the rest of the time. Dr. Shabazz, I think your hands up and then I see also Dr. Rhodes is up to. So, I, um, I want to make a appeal to process the special home rule legislation now while it's kind of fresh in our minds and maybe we have opinions we can offer and if that's consistent I can take a minute to give my my thought. Yeah, that works for me if Dr. Rhodes what were you going to offer please. Yeah, we need to complete this process of discussion the relationship to the special legislation and get that out of the way and the second most important one is community engagement and turns and getting something back to land. We keep kicking that can down the road and we don't have much road left here. Okay, so let's go ahead and complete the discussion now on the special legislation so that I can follow up with Lynn and I'm going to pull up the process again so it's in front of us. And then, next time we meet on the 15th will be dedicated to community engagement if you would all think this would be helpful. I could invite Brianna, who is in who is does the engage Amherst page I think is that right Pamela am I getting that right. Okay. So I could invite Brianna to join us we can have a dialogue about the engage Amherst page we can and then begin to have that dialogue about getting out into the community. Does that work. All right. So let me go ahead and pull up Lynn's process from last time. And go from there. Here we go. All right. Can everybody see that. Okay, and Dr Rhodes I see that your hand is up so I'm going to go to you first. One of the things that we should be aware of or that I'm aware of is that we're not when we're not talking about either or here. We can go down both roads at the same time and not concentrate on one at the expense of the other. Because if we're going to go for home rule, and we want to do home rule as a legislative process then that is something that is indeterminate. But in terms of what we can do, what we can do in relationship to our discussion with the KP law, then I think we need to pursue that with all deliberate speed. Great. Any other comments. And this could be in response to our conversation with Lauren and Devin or in particular, from my perspective what I want to make sure because we can't predict necessarily what council members are going to have to say about this particular process that Lynn has put forward. One of the sort of concerns I had and I mentioned it last week was that it was not directly saying but alluding to the fact that we would need to have a complete plan prior to submitting the special legislation and so are we prepared to let the special legislation wait to be filed until let's say, you know, June when we're completed with our work. And that was a question that I had and and so if there's anything that you'd like to add to this process that takes care of that concern if it was a concern for any other members of this body, we should talk about that. And I'm looking for hands. Oh, I'm sorry, Dr. Shabazz, please. Okay, so here's my quick thing on it and the attorney made an important point and I'd like to also build on things that Dr. Rhodes say to them and 100% agreement with what he raised. The attorney Goldberg raised the question of strategy. And I think we ought to take a moment to think about our strategy here. My position has been that the little moneys that have been taken that was taken from free cash that's there now, whatever may happen in a couple of months from this current years budget and whatever free cash is certified that we might could get. I don't recommend jumping immediately and I won't be recommending that in our June report that we create a body that spends that 200,000 plus immediately. Okay, I have said and Michelle I know has gotten the point maybe others have gotten the point to bank this and to create a kind of endowed fun. And that would grow and then and then pay out of the interest of it toward reparative justice initiatives that the town and that our successor body would with that within the African heritage community and and then bring bring to the town and and then to pay it out of that, even that if you accept that idea that what that means is we're not talking about spending a dying out of the stabilization fund or reparations fund for a few years yet at the very least. If this process with of home rule legislation is a one or even a two year or process. That's fine. What we're doing is we're setting up the legal environment to be as much in our favor as possible, that when we are at the point that this endowed money could generate dividends that could be spent in this program that we have been as near immune to legal challenge as possible. If we kick the can around and say, let's wait and we'll file, you know, a couple of years and let's wait and do this plan and that plan and and figure it all out. Then we delay being ready at the point that the money is ready. And let me say this further with respect to strategy. This particular endowed fund idea is just one stream of money. We can still make an approach under community preservation act funds for projects consistent with CPA, recreation, open land historic preservation housing, we can still make appeals under that my church, the church down not my church and the street from my house here in South Amherst is making a big bid for a big grab of money from CPA. Okay, and herb knows the church well he organizes events for fourth of July right there on the Commons, abutting the church. Okay, so other groups are grabbing at CPA, we can make a recommendation under CPA that can be multi year that can also lay claim to some of that big pot of money to fund things for the preservation of our history in West Cemetery and in other projects that that that are Deborah Bridges can certainly inform us about. Okay, and has ideas about we can use that for housing we can use that for for recreation, we can use that for open land. So that's a whole nother stream of money that we can be recommending toward in our final plan in June, and that our successor group can work on. This the endowed piece is just getting ready. And we ought to give ourself the legal environment that it can have the widest range of possible ways of spending ways of benefiting the community. And so quibbling over well what about this possibility and can we do it without homeroom. That's all fine and good in the period of while we're while we're working on homeroom. But don't say oh let's not do homeroom we don't need it, because you know we can probably finesse it within within within what we're, you know, within current municipal law know. No, we can still work on those things and see, and our successor group and make recommendations and our June report, but but no create get folks moving on the legal environment. We can activate with our representatives are senator with Mindy Dom Joe Comerford to talk about the statewide environment and whether, even, you know, how we might one get this for Amherst because it is our values. And to if it's a catalyst to statewide action that that would open up the whole state. So for me it's all a win win but it's a win win based on taking this language. So where it says recommended language for legislation. I'm fine with the language in this document that they've prepared. Okay, our brief report here if there's agreement with my colleagues is that upon our review, we support moving forward with the, the language produced by KP law for homeroom legislation on this to give ourselves the widest possible legal action in moving forward, as well as well we don't even have to say that but the kind of behind the same thing being that if it acts as a catalyst to statewide action, then great Amherst can take credit for helping to stimulate statewide action. In terms of the allocation plan, including eligibility criteria, we can begin to work on that. Okay. We can work on that and we can work on a recommended process for decision making regarding distribution of funds we can work on that over the next couple of months and provide it to the council. Moving forward but again this isn't going to cost. Attorney Goldberg said it's not a very costly process. It is a timeline for doing it. And that's why we say start it now. Thirdly, it's, as I see it, it's a win-win it gives us the greatest protection, and it can also possibly act as a catalyst for other good, good things that affect other communities as well. Thank you. Okay, Dr. Shabazz. Thank you for that. And before I go to Dr. Rhodes and Pamela, I just want to say that what I'm going to do in terms of process is in order to give everybody an opportunity to look at the special legislation again between now and the 15th. I'm not going to hold any motion to approve this as you stated, but I am going to let Lynn know that generally speaking this process is seeming acceptable to the AHRA. However, we're going to take a vote on the 15th when we're back to just, you know, make extra certain and in the meantime, if you'd like to see any kind of changes in the language of the special legislation or suggest any. For example, like the gift fund, maybe adding that as something so there are some rules around that, then please send those to me and to Pamela and to Jennifer. And we will be sure to make sure that that those get incorporated into that motion for next time we meet so that the whole body can agree to any of those changes. And just quick thing is I, Dr. Shabazz, one of the things that was concerning to me. And that maybe given we've both attended some of these national reparations conferences is the downside question and the answer that if the state comes down on this and says that reparations that offering race based reparations is unconstitutional. Will that have a negative impact on the other communities and the national effort and what I would like us to do is reach out to our partners. Robin, Cam, others that you're in conversation with and just begin to talk about that a little bit we have time to do that and just to make sure that we're not creating any additional harm. In the in the movement itself. And so I'll pause there but I just wanted to get that out there and then I'm going to go to Dr. Pam Pamela. Yes, please. Yeah. Thank you, Dr. Rose I'm sorry for cutting in in front of you but I'm trying to take notes and I need to ask a question. Just when you were speaking before you alluded to two possibilities, a special legislation being one you talked about both paths, and I'm unclear what you meant by the second path. Oh well, we have two paths that we are pursuing and a dual faster one is the special legislation. And there's the path of those things that we can do as was discussed with KP law, without special legislation. Nothing. In other words, we don't have to wait for special legislation to start doing some things right now. All right, thank you very much I just need to clarify that. Right. And Dr. Rhodes you can, you can add, you can make your comment and then I'm going to go to Alexis. All right, so I agree with Dr. Shabazz said and I hope we go that route and I also hope we go down the road of doing things now rather than waiting. We can do both of those at the same time. What I wanted to point out and correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Lynn said that on the 15th that they would council would be wanting to know what are recommended process where you just recommend the process for decision decision making regarding distribution of funds including eligibility. Now I thought that the council or Lynn was saying that they would like to have that on the 15th. That particular if that's not true then it really makes me feel a lot better. No, that is definitely not true. What she wants us to be able to do is approve this process for the way the special legislation will be handled, which includes that when the special legislation is going to be turned over to our state reps, we will have already provided at least some information about eligibility so as you pointed out and as Dr. Shabazz pointed out, we don't have to wait, you know, January is the first time we can file this. We want to let's say we work through the eligibility question by January. Bam, we're ready to file it. If we haven't, and we need to wait until February or March when more of that question has been worked out, we can file it at that time. So that I think on the 15th of August, there will be no substantive reporting that will go back it's simply whether or not this process works for us and the feedback on that on the and feedback on the language but we don't even need to give the feedback on the language yet as far as I understand. It's really, really important that we get to work sooner than later on this eligibility. The entire town is waiting to hear what how we're going, who and what and how in terms of our expenditure of funds is going to happen, especially in terms of who is going to be eligible, how we're going to go down that path. We need to get to it as soon as possible. Yeah, yeah I think you're right I've also heard that question come up a lot and at the same time, I say to myself. We're in our work, we're working through a process, and part of that requires that we reached out to more black residents to get feedback so we're sort of working with both at the same time and I think on the 15th that's going to be right there what you just brought up Dr Rhodes the sort of heart of our discussion. And for engagement process to me I was taking not only the website, but how we're going to go about collecting information and getting that process underway in terms of being in dialogue and in contact with the black residents of Amherst. We just, we need to get on with the work with that. And again as soon as possible. Yes, I couldn't agree with you more and you know I think it came to light today in our conversation that really expanding on that harm report is going to be a very critical step and being able to be in dialogue with members of the black community is is essential for us to be able to put that together so Alexis please. Um, I wanted to get back to what you were saying about getting pushback for race based benefits and I guess I was wondering since we were talking about the importance of nomenclature in this instance, would we not then be changing every time that this like for example where it's saying harms against black people wouldn't it then become people of African heritage or something like that and in which case does that then, at least this was under to my understanding then we're sort of bypassing the race piece of it. When we're like specifying an ethnographic group of people. So I guess I'm wondering, like from now on are we then choosing to use that nomenclature to get around that. I don't feel I'm the best person to answer that question Dr. Jepaz I see you unmuted yourself would you. Um, you know, it's, it's a good question, Alexis, the, and, and, and the our chair just recently were set set race based and I wanted to just, you know, how does they get that word out your mouth Michelle. We're, we're just not doing anything that's race based here, we're doing things based upon a, yes, a community of people that nomenclature wise. I like to say African heritage but we could we can look at other other way and it's actually growing was in some meetings recently where over in Providence they're referring to their reparations work in Providence Rhode Island as African heritage. So it's, it's kind of a growing phrase I'm seeing move around the country, but what it what what does the, and this is tipping my hand a little bit to the way to the eligibility question. Again, I see it on a spectrum. You know, they're, I haven't gotten the numbers exactly. But I think there, there are less than 20 people residents of Amherst, like Deborah Bridges, who have an actual ancestor, going back, not only, I mean, to the 19th century. I'm not talking about Perry Roberts, who gets here in his resident of Amherst from like the 1880s. You know, there aren't a whole and she's got some that even go back further than Perry Roberts in her genealogy, but that's a very small group. So if we create our ancestor list in the way Evanston did around looking at a specific harm redlining and then looking at who lived, who had an ancestor, or who themselves lived in Evanston in a particular period of time. And then we meet it out to a very significant number, out of which they could identify an ancestor list, initially of about 116 people, and then it was out of that ancestor list that they approved the the initial group that got the $25,000 housing vouchers. Okay, so all of that to say, in the analogy is. It wasn't per se race based. It was history based. It was based on a group of people who lived in who had a connection to Evanston Illinois in a specific period of time, when this discriminatory racist practices occurred and were conceivably victims of it. And all of that practice were then eligible for that specific program with that specific benefit. It's not the end it's not what we got to get our council to understand is the eligibility will be on a spectrum. It's going to be based on, it's going to be different things based upon different harm areas that we're researching that we're analyzing that we're investigating. If it's criminal justice as one area or crime and punishment area, which is one of the five areas we look at in reparations, it's going to be a much bigger number. Because that kind of number, those that have been subject to discriminatory policing discriminatory prosecution discriminatory sentencing. Okay, and we've got statewide studies and, and I was talking to folks in our attorney office, Dave Sullivan's office I was talking to people and, and so we know things even here in Hampshire County, the disparities of African Americans, coming into, you know, people who are living now that have been victims of those disparities of policing of sentencing of prosecution. Okay, so that's going to be a bigger kind of number that's eligible for any repair for reparative justice work in that area. So again, if you look at the different areas and you look at I know we're coming up on, we're after 330 so I'll stop there thank you. Thank you Dr Shabazz that was really helpful but I want to check in with you Alexis to make sure that answered your question and then go to Ms Bridges. I am it, it helped in a lot of ways I'm not sure that it helped my specific well I know that you said about what she said that's race based but I'm not sure that that. Like, does that mean that we are changing the nomenclature within our writing then. I don't think that we're correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't I think that we are the language that was included in the special legislation that KP law put forward is the language that we're going to move forward with. I think that answers the questions directly yeah so I think that what Lauren was trying to say is what could be raised is unconstitutional and trying to find a balance between that but I think the language that was used was, you know, I think is is exactly the language we want to use moving forward. Does that resonate for everyone. Okay. All right, Ms Bridges please. Oh, you're muted. I just wanted to comment on some of the things Dr Shabazz said he went way back in the history. And I didn't want. I had a problem this this might be closing the gate after the horses out that the family and my family. I have to leave I'm sorry. My family that's going back as he said, Perry Roberts. Even way before that, and the fact that we have started doing this history way back week not way back but we started doing this history in 2018 before this committee became the committee, and I just wanted to get my own thoughts and be reminded that that this history was not intentionally erased or silence because we started doing this before this committee became the committee. Going back to this history talking about this history and we weren't included this history that we talked about weren't was not included in when you first got together myself, I had a a reaction I had a terrible thing happened to me in fourth grade. So, you know the fourth grade teacher asking me, you're a little colored girl what does it feel like to be a slave. And that was something that I voiced and the reason why my father Dudley got these plaques and was talking about our history. I just want to make sure that this is not doing more harm by not putting this out there, same when this all started, and it didn't start in 2020. So, that was my concern. And like I said it might be closing door out, but I just wanted to put that on the record. I'm very glad that you did miss bridges and and I will say in the in the mass humanities application we referenced that work that began in 2018 and even before that by black films, not just one. Yep. So, thank you and and and I think we need that sort of constant reminder to come back to that and what Dr Shabazz said about you know, if you really look at who is in Amherst now that has those really deep roots like your kid does it's a very small amount of people and so it's really important that we continue to uplift that and and bring that into awareness so thank you. Dr Rhodes. I'm gonna have to leave. What Deborah just said, just resonated with me. And it's sort of like when my wife and I moved to this house that we're in right now. Next tour to us was the principle of a crocodile farm elementary school. And we became close to him. But for some reason he forgot that we were in a biracial family, or that I was black. And he indicated to me and to my wife and to anyone else who would listen that he was opposed to the apartments kids coming into crocodile farm and resisted it resisted it. So was those kids from the apartments. That's my history in relationship to that. And why he felt comfortable saying that to me. And I'll never know. Now mind you, I really respected him. All right. I didn't really really respect what he said, and it made that clear. I didn't understand what I was saying. But throughout history, when you when you when you confront someone with their own victory. They retreat back into some kind of unconscious defense mechanism that doesn't allow them to see or hear what you're saying. And that's what they're what what they're doing without having any kind of conscious about what they're doing. Wow. Thank you Dr Rhodes. I think we that this is a good ending to the meeting and, and I don't have any anything else within 48 hours or anything else. If there aren't any other comments. Sorry, I'm floored by the last for adjournment. Yeah, adjournment 338. Thank you. Thank you all so much. Yeah, we'll see you on the 15th. Okay. Bye bye.