 I've got four things I'm doing at once. Someday I'll learn how to do it. That makes me feel better. Thank you, Chair. We just saw her name pop up. Right, good. OK. We are recording. You're all set. Go right ahead. Thank you very much, Athena. I'm seeing the presence of a quorum. I'm going to call this meeting of Governance, Organization, and Legislation to order. According to my watch, it's 1033 AM on June 17. And we are being recorded. Pursuant to Governor Baker's March 12, 2020 order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law, this meeting of GOL is being conducted by a remote participation. We will have a period for public comment later if public is present. And at that point, if there's public present, I will read the instructions regarding how to make a comment. Just a few little bits of organizational before we turn to the first item today, which is the review of the anti-Asian resolution. We have the sponsor's present, which is great. That really is appreciated by GOL. I just want to point out before we begin that GOL is concerned with the clarity, consistency, and actionability of things like resolutions, proclamations, and bylaws. And we do not engage in a discussion or try not to engage in a discussion of the merit of anything that's put before us. Now, we often slide over that line. But just please keep that in mind that here, our primary concern, our charge, is clarity, consistency, and actionability of the document in front of us. And that's why we like having the sponsors here, because we can engage in a direct goal with the document that is both clear, consistent, and actionable, and hopefully what the sponsors want. So that's the goal. So our first item of business. George, before you start, I need to call the Council to order. Ah, yes, thank you. Given the presence of a quorum of the Amherstown Council at the GOL meeting, I am calling the Town Council to order at 1034. Also, I think you need to just confirm that everybody can hear and be heard. All right, so if you'd like me to do that, Dorothy, Pam. Lynn, can you be heard? Yes, I can hear. Okay, so Dorothy's okay. I'm okay. Lynn obviously is okay. Yes. Darcy? Yes. Pat? Yes. Andy Joe? Yes. Andy? Yes. Franklin? Yes. Shalini? Yes. Great. Tracy? Yes. Thank you. And Angela, of course, is the Minutaker. All right, so everyone is able to be heard and seen. Just for my committee, we're going to follow the agenda pretty much in the order that it is in front of you. But I'm going to insert an item, not anticipated by the Chair, after item number four. But we're going to begin with item two, which is review of anti-Asian resolution, anti-warming. And so the resolution denouncing anti-Asian, anti-Asian-American and xenophobic discrimination is what we have in front of us and we have the sponsors present. And if we could put that up on the screen, is that possible, Lynn? Yep, getting there. Thank you. Is that it? That is it. And if you're able to make that a little bigger, if people are looking at it on the screen. I'm trying to make it bigger, sorry. All right, take your time. It's just a magnifying glass there. Yeah, you can also do it on your own. Yeah, or down below, that's on your screen, yeah. You see the little magnifying plus. Thank you. So while that's getting put in front of you, the way we normally proceed is pretty much line by line, but I usually open up discussions to the committee, but before that, why don't we have one of the sponsors is willing to speak to this, what the resolution is for and why you are presenting it, if that's something that any one of the sponsors, I'm thinking particularly of Tracy or Franklin, but actually anyone of the sponsors would like to speak to this briefly. Tracy? Oh, sure, I can speak to it. So I have a friend, one of my friends was working on a similar resolution in Northampton, and it was approved by the Northampton City Council in May. And at the time it came to my attention, it was around the time that there was a rally in Northampton, which was called the China Virus Liberation Rally or something, a political rally. And so it just seemed like a good, and there had been some other incidents being reported around the community. So it seemed like a good time for Amherst to maybe do something similar and to just reiterate that we're like an inclusive supportive community. I will say too that this resolution, there were similar resolutions that went to both the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives. They're much longer than this resolution with many, many whereas clauses. And so this version is a streamlined version of that. All right. Good. Anyone else? You can use the raise hand. Franklin, if you know other comments. Only that. I think I have a, I'm a visiting prophet at Amherst College and several of my Asian American students going into, into town from campus have been accosted and harassed and they're made to feel pretty unsafe. So we know this can happen even here. And important, I think that town leadership participate in letting these folks know that this kind of behavior is unacceptable and it's happening all over the country. It's good if Amherst can participate in trying to halt this. Thank you. Thank you. So can I like raise my hand again? Tracy, go ahead. Oh, sorry. I was just looking for the raising hand to button, but the, um, I, I think one thing too is that, you know, I know that the JOL looks at, you know, resolutions that are, you know, actionable. And so I really see this as sort of a first step, um, in terms of, you know, it's just calls for this declaration, but then moving forward like what action items can we do? And I think some of it ties into some of the other discussions that are going on in town about how we can be more inclusive and so on. So, um, to me, there's like that connection. Good. Um, I'd like to turn to the resolution itself and work our way through it and see if we can, uh, reach a point where we can have a vote. Um, I want to start with the title. Um, any issues there, a resolution denouncing anti-Asian, anti-Asian American and xenophobic discrimination. Yes, I have a. Andy, please. Go ahead. Um, I found the confusing the term xenophobic, xenophobic discrimination in the way that it's structured. And I felt would feel more comfortable just switching around a little bit and having it called a resolution denouncing xenophobia and discrimination against Asians and Asian Americans. Okay. Would you just repeat that, Andy? You just as a suggestion again. The question is to change it and again, it's because the term xenophobic discrimination. I kept looking at it and was uncertain as to how, how it was structured and what it was trying to achieve. I'm going to repeat that resolution denouncing xenophobia and discrimination against Asian Americans. All right. I'm going to repeat that. Um, resolution denouncing xenophobia and discrimination. Against Asian and Asian Americans. That correct. Yes. Any one else on the committee before we turn to the sponsors. With thoughts on the title. And you may have to just speak up. I've got six of you in front of me. Got hands up from Pat. And then Andy, then Dorothy. Okay. So, uh, Pat, please. Yes. First of all, I want to say hello to my neighbor, Franklin. It's good to see you. In a town. And second of all, uh, I'm very grateful to the sponsors. Um, for bringing this forward. I think it's extremely important. Um, resolution. Uh, I have a couple of things. Scribner things basically after every, where as, uh, ends with a, uh, we need instead of a comma at the very end. Of it. Uh, semicolon before end. And that's throughout the document. Yep. In the fifth, whereas, uh, which, uh, The, uh, It says the first six weeks at the end of the sentence. Um, let me see. I can't. It's, uh, yeah. Let me see. I can't. Uh, Where is in the first six? Let me see. There is a, um, A footnote. Um, marking. Um, right. And it says, um, The end of sentence says their race. And it. And it, the one, the. Footnote marking needs to be removed. Here we go. We're targeted because of their race. That needs to come out and, uh, You're suggesting Pat that the footnote should come out, but that the. Oh, I didn't see it down there. I apologize. Gotcha. Yeah. It should stay there. I have a question about footnotes in resolution. But yeah, but, um, and then, um, In the now, therefore the first now, therefore, I believe. Um, Yes. Any, uh, maybe that's already been. Uh, We're missing an all ALL. I think it should be any and all anti Asian sentiment or. Yes. The sponsors can. Can lay in there, but I would suggest they wanted to write. And all. Yes. It also just strike the end. Okay. Um, anything else. Uh, the third be it further. I'm wondering instead of business community would just say business. Um, but I, that's very minor. Okay. All right. These, by the way, the sponsors, these are all suggestions. Um, and, and they, you will, we'll give you a, So anything else from the committee, I'd like to. Dorothy has her hand up. Dorothy's not a member of the committee. So anyone else from the committee at Mandy Joe, please. Sorry. I'm somehow missed page two and was wondering where things were. So I'm quickly reading page two. So forever. I agree with everything Pat said for Scrivener things. We don't start resolutions with a beat resolved. So I would suggest deleting that whole sentence. We just normally go right. Um, there, there were two warehouses that we're missing the comma after the whereas. Again, these are very minor things. I think it's the third and the fourth one. And I did have a question in the second whereas. Yep. There's that. Reference to a number one and affirming their responsibility as public officials to number one, use their authority to protect all members. There's never a number. Two or three. Cut the rebel relevant portion of that statement and throw it in there. I would get rid of the one. Cause it seems weird. Um, And then I think the only thing other that I have is the last be it further resolved. It's the clerk of the Amherst town council. Straight up. Oh, right. I wasn't sure. That's fine. This is, this is what we do here is just, you know, make. We do it ourselves. We have. Right. It's not pretty. Um, okay. So I don't, any other members of the committee with, um, comments or corrections or observations. Andy's raised. I think a good point about the title. Um, I have a question about footnotes in resolutions. Um, the rest, I think are largely Scrivener corrections, but we, in a moment, I'm going to give the sponsors a chance to weigh in. Um, we're probably would start with the title. Um, I think, um, Dorothy had her hand up earlier. Dorothy, did you have something you want to add? Yes, I do. Um, I, I think. I haven't had a chance to think enough about Andy's title, but I think it's a really good question. Um, I, I think I haven't had a chance to think enough about Andy's title, but I think it's very important to get out the phrase anti Asian. When you read the whole title, it makes sense. But in my mind, when I was thinking, Oh yes, there's that resolution. I would come up with anti Asian say, no, it's not anti Asian. It's denunciation of anti Asian. So we've got the double negative. So I think we want to not ever have anti Asian in the title because it's about the opposite of being anti Asian. Um, just make it simpler. Um, and Andy's title corrections, I don't remember them, but, um, I will read it again for you. But, um, because I think it addresses your concern, uh, denouncing xenophobia and discrimination against Asians, comma, and Asian Americans or just Asians and Asian Americans. No comma. Right. So as long as the anti Asian is, is looked at out because it's too easy for the mind to pluck that. And of course that's the opposite of what it's about. That's how I often describe it when I'm not thinking exactly. Right. So, um, any other comments from the committee? I don't see any. Um, so, um, the sponsors have heard a couple of, uh, uh, let's start with the title. Any thoughts about that from the sponsors? Tracy has her hand up. Please. Oh, sure. Um, so I'll say that the language, um, for the title, I had just kept the language at North Hampton East and their city council resolution, but I agree with, uh, Mr. Steinberg's comments and as well as with Ms. Pam said, um, I think I went back actually, as we were talking today, I went to what the US Senate resolution said and that resolution just says resolution condemning all forms of anti Asian sentiment, but it could just, you know, you could just, I mean, if we wanted to simplify it, um, I agree with the concern about it, like discrimination, anti Asian. And so, and if we want to tighten it up, I agree with all the Scrivener's suggestions. So, okay. And I'm good with all that. I'm sorry. I'm good with all of this. I think that's fine. Okay. Um, I would like to remove footnotes from resolutions. Is that okay? Okay. And that's both for the committee and to the sponsors. I'm not, we usually don't have footnotes in our resolutions and I'm, I'm not sure that it is appropriate, but I'm happy to be overruled. Uh, but that would, my instinct would be, uh, to just drop the footnote and just have the, the sentence stand. And that from the committee, Lynn. Yeah, I think you need to then add something into the statement that recognizes the Asian Pacific policy and planning council. I see Darcy raised her hand and I was actually going to ask her, didn't our pollinator resolution have. Footnotes. It had a ton of footnotes. Um, I think guessing the reason that this footnote is here is because. Um, we wanted the, the, um, The writers, the writers, the authors, Tracy and Franklin wanted to make sure that, um, there was, there was authority for all the warehouses. Good. Um, because that was my, my comments really to my committee. And so many makes an excellent point. Um, this is not unique. This is not a first time. So the answer, I think is simple. We don't object to footnotes in our, um, Resolutions provided that they're appropriate. And this one seems clear. Any other thoughts on that? Do you have anything more? And I think too, um, just the reason I thought to have the footnote, including when it was accessed is like those numbers of the incidents continue to rise, right? So it's just really reflecting one point in time when somebody looked at the database and said, Oh, this is how many there are now. If I went there again today, I'm sure I'd see more. So. Exactly. Anyone else on that or any other read? I've got one or two things I want to raise quickly, but, um, anyone else. Just speak up because I'm seeing. Sorry. Nandy. Okay. So, um, Tracy's point. I have a question that that access is a month old. Um, if we're declaring it now, would we want to potentially today have Tracy or someone access it again and update the numbers? Yes. If they're willing to do that, that would be fine. I think we're going to have to do that. But it's not going to be a good thing. So. And that means access. That means changing the date on the. Footnote. Yes. Right. And if Tracy sends that number to me directly, I can, I will make those changes because I will be the one who will send this to the clerk or the council with the various changes that we've agreed to. So Tracy, if you're willing to do that, I think it would also require a change of in the first six. Since the March 19 to update to however many weeks it's been. Right. Oh yeah. I'm going to go back to my suggestion that we could just cite the organization with the date up here. Update the numbers and then get rid of the footnote. That's on that. Okay. I think Tracy's reasoning seems right on for me that people. Check in and see what the current figures are and that they're changing. Okay. Anyone else on the thoughts on that, whether they would. We could, um, so Mandy Joe's point, you could take out in the first six weeks. The number and then, um, that the date of the March 19th launch and not include in the first six weeks, because that's more language. It's always going to be updating. Yeah. Since March 19, 20, 20 launch of the stock, or Americans and Pacific Islanders, eight online reporting system. And then you'll change that number. Yeah. I was just looking at. So you might be able to answer that right now. That's true. Actually, they say it's, there was a press release last week and they said there were close to 1900 incidents. So did they update the estimated 90% and that it said, I'm sorry, I'm on the phone. And let's see, it said that, what did it say, 90%, I'm just looking to see, I'm arguing with my child. This is the challenges of children being out of school, okay. It doesn't say specifically about the 90%, but it says that 70% of the incidents were verbal harassment, 9% or 8% were physical assaults, 5% were civil rights violations, 3% were being barred from establishments, and there were 4% that weren't business, but it doesn't say specifically to that point. The argument is having the link would allow someone, if they wished, to export themselves and I think all we would need from you is what, I like the idea of dropping in the first six weeks and just begin since, and then whether you want to change that number or add some other slight change of text is the only question. Yeah, I mean, so George, so the challenge is just, so what the press release from last week says that, as of May 13th, there were 1,900 incidents reported. So change that to 1,900? But it's only for like two weeks. So I mean, you could just say, the date on here is a May 13th number, May 13th. Because even though the press releases June, it's actually reporting the incidents to May. Okay. So it said, you know, close to, it says nearly 1,900 incidents. So we could write nearly, that would be nearly 1,900 incidents of racial harassment. Anything else, again, I'm just asking anything else you would like to change, because right now all I'm changing is dropping the first in the first six weeks, deleting that, March 19, 2020 launch, just changing to 1,900, go ahead. Right. And then with the footnote, it would just, you can have that link in it. You could just say in the parentheses, as of May 13th. And drop the access or just as a new. Yeah, right. Because they're reporting back, like they're tabulating the data. So there's a little bit of a lag. Many, many will replace access. Okay. Yeah. All right. Okay. Thank you. George, that means be concerned. I mean, I'm a stickler for footnoting. So an attribution. So, but at least be concerned then about the second, say, the second piece of the percentage, they're not being repeated in the, in the May 13th report. I mean, we do want to take that phrase out. I don't hate to do that, but this is a very powerful phrase. Um, I mean, or we could just have some of these other statistics that are being reported that, you know, that 69% or verbal harassment and 8% or physical assault. Or something. I could work, Smith, some language on that. Okay. I mean, I can also, after the meeting, I can also look at the, at the website a little more thoroughly and at the database itself and not the press releases and see like how, if they're repeating that number, I think somewhere else. Yeah. It just, I won't do that on the fly right now, but that's fine. If the committee is comfortable with, um, it sounds like it is a keeping the footnote. And then you would like the access date in the footnote. Is that what you're saying? Whatever. Well, I think it should say as of May 13th, but I can, I'll, I'll, I'll just look at the, um, I'll look at the website and just see how also data is shown. And, and whatever the statement is in that paragraph should be consistent with the reporting. Right. Exactly. Yeah. And then, uh, from our committee, Pat D'Angelo's has a, her hand up. And Pat, please. Yes. I just want to reiterate the fact that, um, it is would be very important to put the kinds of incidents they are in here, physical assault, et cetera. Uh, when they were read, uh, it kind of punched me in the stomach. And I think it's an important, um, piece that should be in here. Good. So you'd like to see that included. Gracie wants to do that. You're a person to do that. Okay. Okay. And then two of the other sponsors have their hand up, uh, Dorothy Pam and Darcy. Darcy, please. Yeah. Um, I'm just, uh, uh, process wise, is this something that you and Tracy can just do, um, if, if the committee vote on it today? Um, and then is it, is, is this something that we're thinking is going to be on the council agenda on the 29th? Uh, it's ready. Yes. It's ready. Yes. Yeah. I think there's a desire to get this to the council as quickly as possible. Um, it's really up to the committee. I think in the past we are generally comfortable with these kinds of minor changes as long as the document's been looked at thoroughly. Um, but that's up to the committee. If people are concerned about the wording of this, uh, and wanted to come back, then we'd have to wait two weeks. Yeah. It just, it just seems like it's very, very timely with all the life lives matter, uh, stuff that's going on. I agree a hundred percent, but I need to hear from my committee. Um, as a committee member, I'll weigh in George. Please. I'll weigh in and say if George and Tracy work together with the language and George is fine, I would be fine with it going directly to the council from there. And we can craft a motion for that to be the case. I agree with that. I agree. And Dorothy has her hand up as well. Dorothy, please. Can you hear me now? Yes. Yes. I, I'm really sorry. I didn't really get a chance to go over this till last night, but there's a very important sentence, which is lacking here. Um, this acts as if this anti Asian and anti Asian American discrimination is a direct result of the coronavirus, uh, epidemic, but anti Asian discrimination has been part of American history. From the beginning, my grandfather told me of cases out there is my cowboy grandfather, um, you know, very beginning part of the 20th century. So here's a sentence I just started to put together, uh, whereas there has been a long standing history of discrimination and harassment of Asian and Asian American, um, Americans. Um, let's see what is the word. I can't even read my words here. Discrimination recent events have, um, increased that. I just think that the recent situation should be put within, um, we have to put it within the history that this is not something brand new. There has been a lot of, of this type of discrimination for hundreds of years. Well, you could take again, this is getting us into the weeds. You could take the whereas, the very first whereas, which makes the connection with COVID and you could insert, um, the use of anti Asian terminology and rhetoric related to COVID-19, such as the Chinese virus and Wuhan virus have, uh, what exacerbated or increased. That's good. Long standing, long standing, keep going. Long standing history of our long standing, um, discrimination and harassment, long standing discrimination and harassment of Asians and Asian Americans. Right. And it's, I'm glad that, that, that this, that both are put in there because of course, and they were, they were not Asian Americans. They were Asians in the beginning. Um, yeah, they weren't allowed to be citizens. They weren't allowed to be. And, um, you know, if you wanted to, you'd add a sentence about how to build America. Okay. Okay. So here the thought is that this connection, um, the thought Dorothy's making is that this connection with COVID-19 should be right from the get go connected to the larger issue of discrimination against Asians and Asian Americans. And that connection can be made in the very first whereas clause by inserting after Wuhan virus, um, or then the phrase would be, and you're going to have to read it for me slowly. Let me just hear it and then we'll, we'll talk about it. Okay. Good. Thank you. Well, Dorothy, I'm going to ask you to help me. So these virus, comma, and we'll hand virus have. So what, what, Okay. Are part of a long standing history of discrimination and harassment of Asians and Asian Americans. Um, recent effort, recent events have just, um, exacerbated this. Okay. Um, people can weigh in either. I'm suggesting is after with the just keep the fence as much as we can as the sponsors wrote it, but insert the clause after Wuhan virus, um, that in other words, these events, COVID-19 events have what increased have exacerbated the long standing. And at that point, you could insert your clause. That's what I'm suggesting. Okay. That's good. That's good. Um, have the sponsors can weigh in have exacerbated that to have exacerbated the long standing. I think so. Cause it's pretty long standing. Keep going. Long standing history of discrimination and harassment. Okay. Of Asians and Asian Americans. Period. This period is American, American Americans. Yes. That's what I'm saying. Yeah. Semi-colon and and. Okay. I didn't hear you. Starting to sound like Mandy Joe. Oh, oh, any of it with the set up now. Rubbing off on all of us. Yes. Oh, I got it. I, I, by the way, totally support the insertion of this. Okay. I just want to read it one last time. I want to make sure people hear it. And if there's any changes or some problems, speak up. And then I would like to go to a vote. Um, unless people have anything else they'd like to insert. So this first whereas would read whereas comma, the use of anti-Asian terminology and rhetoric related to COVID-19, such as the Chinese virus quote and the Wuhan virus quote have exacerbated the long standing history of discrimination and bias. Is that right? Am I missing? I'm trying to read back. I had, I had harassment. Oh, and that's right. Reading my lousy handwriting. Discrimination, discrimination and harassment of Asians and Asian Americans. Semi-colon and. Okay. Good. Tracy has her hand up. Tracy, please. Um, yeah, for just, um, for that longer clause where we were talking about the website and the data while we were talking. I went there and the, so, you know, since the March 19th launch. So there were, as of the May 13th report, there were 1,843 incidents. That estimated 90% still say that it was related to the race. And to the point that was brought up earlier about adding some of the details. These incidents, I don't know how to make how, if we want the wear us to get much longer, but 69% of the incidents were verbal harassment and 8% were physical assault. If you want to add those details. Okay. And that way, George, and I don't have to meet after. If you trust me to insert those two 69% were verbal. And, uh, what was the phrase? Verbal harassment. Verbal harassment and 8% physical assault. Okay. And I also just, go ahead. Oh, no, once you've got that part. And the number up above George, 1710, it's changed. Now, 1843. 43. And yes, footnote stays. And what happens to the access? Again, is that as of May 13, 2020? Yeah, it's the, it's as of May 13th, because that's the data, the reporting. That was reported in June. And what we're quoting now from that site is accurate. Is what's meant to ask us to do on that report. Thank you. May 13th. Yes. Okay. Okay. It's a May 13th report that was tabulated as of June. Oh, and then you access the 18th. I got that. Okay. All right. Okay. And I also just want to mention that Shalini is also a sponsor and she's on the call. She's been quiet, but if she had anything to add and, uh, she came in after we, I had sent it to Darcy. She added herself as a co-sponsor, which we greatly appreciate. Thank you. So I just want to make sure that we get this right. It's Darcy, Darcy, and Shalini, who are sponsors. Right. Yes. Thank you. On the council. And then Tracey and. Frankly. Frankly. Okay. Um, I just want to, if I may, I just want to, as I'm an historian by training. And so I appreciate it. I thought I would, um, suggest that. Hesitating. Complicated issue, but I think, uh, adding the phrase about the longstanding, um, discrimination and harassment, uh, uh, is very important. And I appreciate that very much. You're getting a, uh, a first person lesson in what we do, which, uh, and that's why we really value having the sponsors present. Um, it makes a difference. I have a question before we're going to come to a vote. Um, let me, one last time, any other comments and or changes? I don't see any hands. I don't see any, hear any voices. So, um, I want to raise this quickly. And then, uh, maybe we'll come back to it later in the meeting. Um, we have this with a pollinator resolution. We are as a council, we're trying obviously for good reason to shorten our meetings. And so often resolutions are appearing now as part of the consent agenda. And when they are put on the consent agenda and are passed, um, the normal public sort of expression and so forth is, is not, does not happen. And, uh, I felt that part of this can be addressed by the chair by producing perhaps slightly more detailed reports of the conversation. That at least as a written record of what we're said, um, I tend to simply say we passed it and here was the vote. Um, so that's on me, but I'm also thinking, and I don't know what my other counselors and, and committee members think that there is also a place for the sort of public at the council meeting itself, in spite of the tremendous amount of time demands that we're facing, that these get in a public expression. And when they're just on the consent agenda, um, it's, it's just, it's done and it's official and it gets sent, which is great. But there is no opportunity. For instance, I would invite Franklin and Tracy to come to a council meeting when this is going to be presented. And so that's something in the back of my mind. I'm a little concerned about, um, our desire to shorten our meetings is a very important one. On the other hand, with resolutions like this, I think there's a place for a kind of, you know, at the actual council meeting for some kind of public expression. Um, for George, the, since on the new order of the agenda, Franklin, since come before the consent, we would have a, the sponsors, uh, speak to the resolution. Uh, we have not been reading resolutions recently, but they could to it. And then it would move on to the consent agenda. And, and that allows for both accomplishments, if you will. Right. George, please, Mandy. So I'm sorry to correct you, Lynn, but consent agendas before proclamations now, but I'll move this, but what I was going to say is our consent agenda rule specifically allows for minor comments between the motion for consent agenda and the vote on consent agenda. So we could use that portion of the rule to make sure the sponsor highlights and maybe read some of them now. Therefore, you know, particularly the call on public officials to condemn and announce, um, and, or, you know, pick some of, we don't have to read this, ship it off to maybe the president and all, but pick some of the specific resolved clauses to read before we actually vote on it just to highlight it. Mandy, Joe, I'm going to suggest that instead I put proclamate I as president can move proclamations before consent. I think the consent agenda is confusing enough for people. I'd rather do the rearrangement of the agenda for this purpose of this meeting. I hate to complicate. I know you've been trying, well been trying to shorten our meetings because for those of you who are interested in this sort of thing, it was five hours on Monday and some of us had an hour earlier today, no, it was quite a day. But I think it's important that these kinds of statements get some kind of, and I'd also like the sponsors to be invited to be present. It happens at the very beginning of the meeting. And if there's an opportunity if it's appropriate for them to say something, I've certainly found that to be very meaningful when we used to meet face to face, having someone comment and just briefly speak about the proclamation or resolution. And so I think we can continue to allow that to happen. I would like to see that. So you have Andy Steinberg on the committee would like to speak and Tracy. Andy, I've created appreciation to us and but we did have a six hour meeting the other night and June 29th is going to be another long meeting. It is the night that the fiscal year 21 budget is being presented to us. I think that we're going to have substantial potential discussion about it because as Northampton had, there's could be discussion about the police budget. It is I think that it would be a great mistake to let this get longer than necessary. I don't think that reading the resolution is helpful. But the the other possibility is in the public comment they have two or three years in the statement as to why this is an important issue gets it out at the beginning. Because it sort of sets it up with the public comment period. But I really don't want the resolution read in the time taken because I don't want another six hour night. On the committee, Pat, the Angelus has her hand up. Pat, please. Yes, I feel I'm in agreement with George that the resolution or portions of the resolution need to be read as someone who's presented resolutions and proclamations that have not been read. It's been very disappointing. Our work is to make sure our community is whole and healed when when there are disruptions and making a public statement is critical because most people in town will not know anything about this unless we do. And that's as important as the budget. I'm sorry, Andy. Andy from the committee has another comment. You know, I didn't I meant to lower him and we're back up to Darcy Darcy, please. Yeah, I just have to, you know, I think that the consent agenda is good in a lot of ways. But but I think some of the resolutions that we have in town are really our connection to the people in town. And I at the last meeting, I'll have to say, I felt. You know, I I had a lot of struggle about what to do about the pulmonary pollinator. And I ended up feeling bad about the fact that there was neither public comment nor a reading of it because I think it was a really important resolution. And I so I feel like reading part of a resolution at least, if not all is actually important. So I hope that we do that. I mean, the next best thing would be to do public comment, like Andy said, but right, that would be an opportunity. And I think also inviting the. Well, we'll talk about it in a moment. Shalini. Yeah, I really agree with Pat and Darcy's comment that we need to have space for this, especially this topic being so relevant and urgent. I think this is what demonstrates to people that it's not just a resolution we're passing, but we're making time for it. So and and also it's then it lets residents know that we are serious. We are all declaring this and it's our commitment. So we are taking our time to make this statement. I also want to obviously appreciate again the spares for taking this initiative and encourage you to continue to let people know that they can approach us individually as town councillors or the whole to bring these things to our attention and these initiatives. And also I want to just thank the committee. Now I get to see what the GO does. It's a lot of work. Wow, thank you. Thank you, Dorothy. Hello, I want to agree with those who say that there should be some public time, not in the public comment, but officially on the agenda. And I believe it can be done very briefly. Introducing the two main sponsors and have each one of them say one of the main sentences from the resolution. I do agree with Andy that reading the whole resolution might take up more time than we have. But I think it's important to introduce the two faces from the community and to have each of them say one thing about the resolution. And we do hope, of course, that there will be some press coverage of this because a resolution that drops into the desert air and is never seen again is not a very effective resolution. So we have to give them an opportunity to show that two people from the community have come forward with this resolution and we have agreed with it. Tracy. So I sometimes tune into the town council meetings, sometimes not the whole meeting, sometimes, but I understand how long and the agendas are these days and how many important issues you're dealing with. I mean, I have spoken to a number of members of the community who feel strongly about this resolution, who have been discriminated against or harassed and I mean, they would very much be willing or even welcome the opportunity to speak about it. I think there is a challenge that when the agenda is so full or if a resolution is passed without any discussion or anything, like where does it go? I mean, one root, I mean, I'm very flexible about, you know, if I speak at that council meeting or not. I mean, one thing I was thinking about is this discussion was going on is, you know, even having a like a press release or a statement released after just about it, maybe to get more attention to it that way in a little press and that could even be an opportunity to for some people who would have liked to comment on the public comment to make their viewpoints known or something. But it is, I think it is helpful if it's not just, you know, on a consent agenda and just like get to vote it on with no discussion. So I understand that balance about everybody's time because you're putting in a lot of hours counselors. Well, I'm glad I mentioned it, but I also regret mentioning it because obviously it's taken up a good part of our time, but I guess an important issue and our council president is here as a member of the committee. She certainly hears what's being said. Andy raises a good point as well. We're not going to resolve it here. It's something I wanted to be raised. It's been raised. I do hope that at some point I or someone from the council will reach out to Tracy and to Franklin and invite them to be present at least the early part of the council meeting for public comment and or some kind of and I hope that this would be something we do regularly, but it's something we have to discuss I think as a council. Any other thoughts? Let me just say I appreciate the various comments back and forth. I will as I look at the full agenda try to come up with the best way and I will be back in touch with all three of the council sponsors and I need to make sure that I have Franklin and Tracy's emails to be in touch with them regarding timing. Good. I can get that to you, Lynn. Thank you. Andy. Yeah, my additional comment is very quick, but I appreciate all that's being said. If we if the goal is to make the community aware of this, the meet our meetings may not be the best way. It may be the best way to put it on our web page right at the top for the time page where we have newsletter pieces and make it a news item that the council has passed that resolution. Good. Thank you, Andy. Andy, Joe has her hand up. Andy, please. I was just going to make the motion. If I know you're going to all kill me and I don't blame you and maybe I'll be thrown off as chair, which I, you know, I could live with thinking. I know. Well, I don't know. We have anyway, I do have an issue. I'm afraid with the very first now, therefore, be it resolved. I apologize. We need to go back to it for a second if we can. I had a question mark in my margin and I missed it. The idea of calling on all local public officials to do something. Are people that just puzzled me? Are my missing something in terms of action ability and so forth? Maybe it's just that the language is I'm just missing the point. But is it just a rhetorical? We're not actually going to follow through on this. It's just exhortation. I think as a council, we can, we make it clear where we stand. Are we also calling on, I mean, who are all local public officials? Is that Backelman? Is that, is that the chief of police? Is that, I mean, we can speak for ourselves. I just, I'm sorry, I should have raised this earlier, but it really did puzzle me. Any thoughts on that? Including there's no problem and let's move on. There's no problem. Let's move on. Okay, that's one vote. That's two votes. Third vote. All right, good. We'll move on. I'm going to finally make the motion. I moved to declare the resolution denouncing xenophobic, xenophobia and discrimination against Asians and Asian-Americans clear, consistent and actionable as amended. Second. Is there a second? Yes. And he seconds. All right, let's move to a vote. And I need to get my screen up here. And it's not going to go full. So, Pat, yes. Lynn. Yes. Andy. Yes. I'm sorry. There's Andy and there's me, Andy. That was Andy. Andy. Yes. And the chair is a yes. That is everyone I believe. The vote is unanimous. Where's your hand up? Thank you. Donnie. Okay, so there were two good ideas that came up today that we can publicize our commitment to this resolution as a town council as a leadership on the website and press release. Is there anyone? Do we know who's doing that? Yeah, I usually talk to Brianna about kinds of things and often Paul then includes them in his weekly meeting, which I believe is on Tuesdays with Scott. Okay, do it a couple of ways, but I'll talk to Brianna about that. Okay. Great. And they might even come up with more ways to get the word out. For instance, the information things that get pushed out to people that have asked for them. Sometimes she puts banners on the website and then a press release that also gets put out there. And so there's a lot of ways. Brown is very creative about that. Yes. All right. Thank you, Lynn. Absolutely. Did you want someone else to do it? Are you going to do it? No, I'm fine. You know, thank you. It's putting the whole package of the agenda together. Thank you so much. Yeah, Shawnee, thank you. I see no one else's hands up. I want to thank our sponsors for coming. I'd like to thank our council members, councillors who were also sponsors for being present. But I'm ready to move on to agenda item number three, the plastic bag ban bylaw. I need to go get it. All right. Thank you. Yes. Thank you all for coming. You're welcome to stay if you really if you really find fascinating. We like to have a public as you notice at the moment, there are no attendees. So we're often very lonely here at you. You guys did a great job. Thank you, Franklin. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We know how to clear a room. Let's put it that way. Just confirm that I have the right one, Darcy. Right. Yes. Yes. The one that has the track changes in it. Yep. So yeah. Oops. Okay. Here. Shall I start, George? Please, if you would. Okay. That was a long discussion of that was a whole hour on the other. I was expecting 15 minutes. But anyway, I hope that you all got to look at in your packet at the article that came out recently about how the single use plastic bag being the withdrawal of it by the by the governor is is being their advocate advocacy organizations that are really pushing to have that reversed. So it occurred to me that there's a little bit more urgency about getting this this done. So I did go back and make further changes to the to the bylaw that we discussed the last time. But I ended up not incorporating all of the suggestions that the committee had made because I'm further thought I just wanted to talk to you about it more. And so I just will go through it. I also if you noticed, I don't know if you noticed, but if you scroll down, this is a very long document. It goes back. What is it, seven versions? Six versions, six versions, going back to all the way. If you go all the way to the bottom, it's the the the the bylaw that was passed in 2016. So when I looked at this in January, when the bylaw the bylaw committee came up with its proposal, the we were comparing it to the original, that they were amending. Well, I don't know actually, Pat, you would know this. Not were you were did you take the version that was presented by Bernie Kubiak and Bob Ritchie or did you take the version? I don't remember. I'm sorry. So all of this was fairly confusing to look at, you know, where we were coming from. But the the the first committee, the Bernie Kubiak, Bob Ritchie committee, they really looked at it with a very light touch. And their main thing that they did was that they if you if you look at the original, if you're all the way down at the bottom, I'm looking at mine separately. So I don't know what you're doing. I don't know what you're doing there. Let's see. If you scroll all the way down to the bottom. That's where I am. Okay. And you look at the findings. That was one of the problems that that the original committee had with the bylaw and also the the committee that added in the counselors, the bylaw review committee. So if you look at the section that said findings, there was a problem with the fact that some of that was out of date, the facts that were listed in the findings. But the very last of the findings said the primary purpose of this bylaw is to reduce the negative effects on single use plastic bags on the environment, reduce contamination of plastic bags and residential recycling streams. And most importantly, to encourage consumers to bring reusable bags while shopping, eliminating the environmental impacts of any single use bags. Well, the committee with Bernie Kovac and Bob Ritchie saw that one sentence. They pulled it out and they made it into the purpose. And they they they've kept the findings also, but they took the part they saw that the findings actually express the purpose. And they put it into and they replaced the purpose section with that one sentence, which is basically what I did. Right. Separately, by the way, I did the same thing they did. But I did it, you know, we both came up with the same idea separately. So the purpose was taken out by the the bylaw, the official bylaw review committee, the second one. Yes, second one. And I put that back in. I took out the findings because some of them were out of date. I in retrospect wish I had left some of those findings in because they were very valuable, but I won't go into that. So the purpose, I think, is is the most important part of the bylaw. And it is expressing the legislative intent. The findings also expressed was a big expression of the original legislative intent. And I think it's really important to respect that and to make sure that that businesses, either ones that are here or new ones that aren't, you know, maybe coming from a town that doesn't have a single use plastic bag ban, understand why they're being asked to do what this asks them to do. So I left the purpose in, which I don't think there was any problems with before. But I also left in the the definitions and the the used regulations number three, we and we had discussed changing three so that it would become mandatory for retail establishments to make reusable bags available. And I actually discuss that with the zero waste Amherst group. And they were pretty uniformly against the idea of doing that, which you would think you would wonder, well, why? But it's because we don't want retailers, we don't want all retail establishments to be mandated to carry reusable bags. That's that's too many establishment and too many bags out there in the environment. I think probably all of you, if you're like me, I have like four times as many reusable bags as I need. And so we don't need more of them being provided. And the establishments, like the grocery stores and CVS, they already provide them. We don't need to require them to provide them. So I go back to and I know this committee doesn't like including language that is not quote enforceable. But I think that in in situations like this, where the purpose is already stated, as being to encourage residents to use reusable bags, that we can have language that helps businesses, figure out how they're going to do it, how they're going to transition. I mean, ideally, we want to get to a point like many countries in Europe are in where, where the stores don't even provide any bags, they just assume customers will be coming with their own bags. And they do. But in the meantime, they need guidance about what they can do pending that later period of time when everyone's all people are always going to bring reusable bags. So they need to have figure be able to this gives them guidance, the definitions gives them guidance about what they can do in the meantime, if they think their customers need some kind of bag. So I left that in, because I want this committee to consider the possibility that you can have words of encouragement for residents to do a particular thing. You might, you know, like later on, we may have a bylaw that that banned single use plastic containers. Well, we would we might want to also have some kind of guidance in that bylaw as to help businesses figure out what they can do in the meantime. And they're, you know, there are other things like the carbon tax or something like that. Not that we're going to do that in Amherst, but that, you know, the purpose of that is to get people to use less cash by smaller cars or do whatever they need so they don't have to pay so much for their gas. So it's not, I think we have to, we don't want to be putting in language that's so aspirational that we're looking way, way into the future. We're looking at how we want people to to be changing their behavior now. So that's why I left that in. And I did take out the section on deferments because I understood I heard the committee saying that that makes made sense to do at this point when it was passed almost five years ago. So that is basically what my thinking was. And, you know, I do think that we've all put a lot of time into talking and thinking about this. I'm hoping that you will just, you know, bend a little bit and allow this these words of encouragement and guidance for business to stay in here because it was, you know, it kind of honors the original authors and it helps businesses figure out how to how to handle this bag ban. Yes, that's basically my question. Thank you. OK, I see Pat's hand raised. Yes, I'm concerned deferments were was eliminated, but it may need to be either returned or an emergency section be added to this bylaw since we're in a pandemic where people are purposefully asked not to bring their own bags to stores and that we are using plastic bags as a way of keeping people's contamination levels possibly keeping them low. So I I feel like I really don't think we can have deferments out or we or there needs to be a new section about emergencies. Other thoughts, comments from the committee on the bylaw either on deferments or any of the other changes or nonchanges that have been made Mandy, please. Thank you, Darcy, for explaining why Section C, the addition to Section C, you guys decided not to change because I know that was a suggestion we had made that might have allowed me to vote that this proposed amendment is actionable. And so now I I I understand why that change wasn't made, but I still stand with the position that bylaws are not meant for guidance unless you're going to find Institute some sort of penalty bylaws are for enforcement, whether that be criminal or noncriminal. That's why we institute a bylaw if we're not going to put in an enforcement mechanism in there for something. The bylaw is not an appropriate method for instituting something in a in a general sense like this. So I I can't support the addition of, I guess, everything in B and then the C because everything in B relates to the addition in C when there's no enforcement of that and it's not mandatory. It's just guidance. That's where I see the purpose. You know, you can even without C, that's the purpose of this and and B, you know, even without the addition to C, the the all the things already in C that the plastic bags or band does encourage people to bring because they might not like the other bag options or they might be charged for the other bag options. Because even without C saying you can't number three saying you can, some stores did that. So, you know, I I I just can't declare those sections added to B and now C. Actionable. OK, Andy. Yeah, I have slightly different view on what Mandy just said, though I understand it totally. Darcy makes a very good point that three really does say something important to the community and to people reading the regulation, the whole thing to make it understandable. And I would like to make sure that that sentence that is C three is in there some point for that reason. The other thing that I had thought about was getting back to C two. And I think that the problem with that is, is that it's not something we're regulating. It really is part of the definition of thin use single plastic bag. So because a thin use single plastic bag is defined as something particular. And when you get down to C A, that's the core of the whole what we're banning, banning thin use single plastic bags. So then taking a section of C two where it says, but this kind of thin use plastic bag is OK, really belongs in the definition. So that's so I guess my thought was take C two, put it in the definition and take in find a place for C three, even if it's not under the use regulation section, but it ought to be in the in the bylaw. All right. I'm sorry. Yeah, I wonder whether or not Andy's suggestion means. Would that sentence might be integrated into the purpose somehow? The customers are encouraged to bring somehow integrated into the purpose statement. Yes. Kind of the third part of the purpose statement is to encourage customers, consumers to bring reusable bags while shopping, eliminating the environmental impacts of anything. Exactly. Right. And there is there anything else in C three that should also be added above? So if you struck that first sentence and continued retail established may provide with that, should that be integrated up above or not? That's what I would suggest so that we have three under regulation and then go with Andy's suggestion that two goes into definition. C two goes into definitions. And C two goes into definitions. Right. Under thin film, single use plastic bag. Good would. So that would be an exception. Yeah. Yes. So under definition. Go ahead. Just saying that makes sense. Sorry. Lynn, do you want me to show my screen? Because I was. Sure, I'll stop sharing. I don't have a word version. Oh, yes, this is a word version. I'm sorry. Yeah, well, I don't shoot. I'll just share mine. Wendy's very good. You're tracking the changes. Yeah. There you go. Thank you. Do I need to give you permission? No. So I think I think we can see some of it here. I moved the second two sentences of C three up to the end of A. Yeah. That's the green on my screen. Right. I just moved all of you to the end of I mean, I think yeah, it's end of that definition definition just in whole it just says are permissible. And then I guess what I would have to do is delete the rest of this. Yeah. I don't think we need a one then. Could you make it a little larger Mandy? Sure, sorry. There we go. So yeah, I moved the whole number two C two up to the end of the definition of thin film single use plastic bag. The green that you see in three three C three got moved up to purpose. And then I deleted the first sentence of three and two. And I think that means we wouldn't even need a one. That's correct. I think it would look like that then. And deferment, we haven't talked about deferments. So nothing's changed there. I do have a question. And once we move that up, do we need these extra definitions because they're not part of any regulation. They're just part of a purpose and a thing. Can we just go with the one? So you're saying they're not anywhere in the bylaw. They're no longer in the use resilient regulations or enforcement. They're just up in the paper anywhere in the bylaw. I would keep them in. Yeah, there's no harm in keeping them in. And I think that they're helpful to businesses to to see what the options are. Comments, thoughts. I mean, I just think I think it makes it more confusing because these definitions have nothing to do with what a thin film plastic bag is. And so someone's going to be looking at that and potentially trying to figure out what's allowed. Whereas, you know, I think many people have a general idea of what a biodegradable reusable compostable or recyclable paper bag is. And since we're not enforcing, I guess my thoughts are we're not there's nothing to enforce like if there was a use regulation that said people must use compostable bag, then we would need an actual definition of compostable bag. So a board of health person could go in and say that one's not compostable under the definition, but that's not what we're enforcing at all. So we don't really need those specific definitions. We can go with people's general knowledge. I'm sorry. My problem is without looking at the entire thing. And this just comes from my experience of working on the zero energy bylaw. If it's referred to anywhere in the bylaw, I think it's best to have it in the definitions. And but I I'm not looking at the whole bylaw. So the only place those words are will recyclable compostable biodegradable and this standard of the standard is is only used in the definitions. Everything else is just up here, right? And we already had in the purpose. We're usable was already in there. May I speak? Darcy, go ahead, please. I guess I just feel like it is a service to businesses to have them know exactly the types of bags that might be allowable, say, say a state law passed and they had put a lot of money into what one of those kinds of bags, you know, it it may make a difference if they are if they have the exact type of bag that is allowable. Like I said, this just guidance for businesses, that's all because they, you know, not everybody will be bringing reusable bags and they have to figure out what they're going to do and what is, you know, it probably is confusing to them. But I mean, I'm I'm looking at this as like in five years, we can take out these definitions because hopefully there'll be enough of a transition of people using reusable bags. We don't we won't need this and all of our current businesses will already know what they're doing. Presuming we don't have more COVID-19 is coming down the road. Andy. OK, so two things. One is where we're at right now. It could be handled in some fashion like this, where you get down to defining then film single use plastic bag, which is what the core of this whole thing is getting in there. Also, a thin film single use plastic bag is not biodegradable, compostable or recyclable, but is typically a bag with plastic handles with the thickness of three meals, you know, going from getting that in so that you use the biodegradable, compostable and recyclable in the thin use definition. And therefore it is used. And of course, the ASTM gets used in one of the is gets used to define compostable. So it all come it all comes together in the definition of the what you are banning. And the other thing that I wanted to get back to was the concern that Pat had raised the end about having that one section of deferments. We don't really need that because this whole you're bringing up, I think, an example of the governor having said, we're temporarily suspending this and he overrode all local regulations. And I hope that that never happens again. This is not about making something deferrable. It's about making something enforceable and happen. And which gets into an entirely different subject unrelated to this. And that is somebody ought to be suggesting as a council, we consider writing a letter to the governor saying it's time to allow us to reinforce our to start enforcing our plastic bag ban again. Well, I don't agree with that. And you know, I care about the environment. I don't agree because the people in the stores who are working with the bags, et cetera, are in much more danger of contracting COVID the longer they're in the store and the more they're doing. It's pretty safe for you and I to go in. But if they have to handle my my cloth bags and everything else, we're putting them in danger. And I think that's inappropriate. Sorry, I interrupted them. All right. And Darcy, have your hand up. I just I just feel like that that needs a response is that that using plastic bags is by no means the only alternative to reusable bags. You know, there are plenty of other types of bags that could be used that are in this list right here. So that's why it would make sense to join with these advocacy agencies to say we need to to lift the ban on bans. Because it wasn't necessary. It is necessary. There's just alternatives to using. We're getting away from this, but I was just say when we started and I couldn't bring my reusable bags, I was able to use recyclable paper bags that stop and shop and then they stopped stocking them, which forced me to use the plastic bag. So I think that goes to Darcy's point where you can still require you can still enforce a plastic bag ban during covid without while also banning the use of reusable bags or customers bringing their own bags. I think that's what she's going to, which would also still ensure that the the employees remain safe because they are only touching brand new bags. But anyway, I added a sentence down here at Andy's suggestion that we should probably look at. Let's look at it. Yes. I want to weigh in just briefly and then we'll go back and see what the rest of you think. I'm kind of leaning towards Mandy's point that a bylaw has a specific purpose and the definition should be keyed to what the bylaw is requiring people to do. And this sentence telling us what thin film plastic bags are not could actually they're not rocks. They're not, you know, I mean, you could this list could go on for an eternity. I'm not sure what this really adds other than now makes the definitions relevant because now the terms are here and we need to define them. So could people speak to some more bit about why they feel it's necessary to have all these other definitions in, which then also forces us to have add the sentence that has been added telling us what a thin film plastic bag is not. George. Yeah, please. I'm just going to go back and this is going to come up again when we start looking at other bylaws that are on our list. Right. And that is I would leave nothing to the population's imagination. I would define it to the extent necessary and possible and understand that all bylaws have to be reviewed on a regular basis. But it's you will find when we get to the zero energy bylaw, there's still one term that doesn't feel completely defined and spent ages doing those. If it's bylaw, then it should be and not totally understood, it should be defined. If it's not in the bylaw, then it doesn't need to be here. And I don't know whether ASTM D640 zero zero standard is in the bylaw. It isn't. It isn't. If it isn't, then take it out. The only place it appears is right here. So I guess I go with George. This sentence I just added at Andy's thinking is not necessary to define thin film single use plastic bag. It doesn't help identify what a thin film single use plastic bag is because it's not even talking really about plastic bags at all. Whereas at least the sentence here is helping to define what a thin film single use plastic bag is because it could be those bags that people wrap their meat in from the meat counter or whatever could be thought of as potentially a single use plastic thin film single use plastic bag. And this is saying, no, those are not what we're banning here. So I think that sentence helps define what a thin film single use plastic bag is. But this sentence that's saying it's not a biodegradable bag, a compostable bag or a recyclable labor bag. Well, a recyclable paper bag from anyone's definition because the word papers in there would never be thought of as a single use plastic bag. No, so I'm not plastic. Let me make a suggestion quickly and see because we do have some other major issues we have to address today. And we may just have to put this off again. I hate to say that, but let's just I would suggest delete this last sentence, move the thin film definition to the top. It should be highlighted, delete ASTM, just take that out. And the top item would be thin film with this last sentence removed. And then I would leave the others in in response to Lynn's concern, biodegradable bag, compostable bag, recyclable paper bag, reusable bag. Mandy, I don't think they do any harm and they are. I guess your point is that they're nowhere mentioned except here. No, they are mentioned only place they're all. Only because those words are used in. The purpose, right? That's the those words are used. Yeah, but since they're there, Lynn's argument is there should be some it would be helpful to have a definition. And and Darcy's concern is that I mean, I'm not really sure how many people use bylaws as a way to to inform themselves. But still, it could be useful to businesses. But the ATSM should be out because it's not in there at all. The others are mentioned right here. I'm sorry. It's it's part of it. It's fine because it is used within the definition of compostable bag. Right. It could just be added to that. It could be just the second sentence of that definition. OK. Yeah. And then but I would put the thin use at the top because that's the one that matters, right? The rest of it. It wouldn't be in alphabetical order. Generally, I'm going to go to the any Steinberg rule of writing bylaws, since he was the one that helped us make sure that we wrote the zero energy bylaw to a good standard. And that is you keep these in alphabetical order. But I do take the ASTM that's on top and put it at the end, the compostable thing and get rid of the issue. All right. And take out the last sentence of the right ten years. Yeah. I think that's that works. OK. Thank you, Manny, for doing this. By the way, I appreciate this kind of thing is really helpful like that. Yeah. Do we have a little quote mark in front? Right. I wonder, do we need to get rid of these quote marks? Yeah. OK. So we are now at 1205. I think we made we made a fairly good progress, but we have at least two major items we have to address. One related to our task of of of coming up with recommendations for the finance committee. The other is something that's come to our attention. Courtesy of the council related to time management evaluations to say nothing else of a few other things that we're just going to probably let's slide. We need to decide what we want to do with this. Are we in any are we in the position to actually act on this today? Lynn, I would like to move that we recommend this to the town council. OK, we have a motion. So I would object to a motion. We don't recommend we declare things clear, consistent and actionable. No, right. That would be the motion would be. And so the motion has been made to declare this bylaw as amended clear, consistent, actionable. Is there a second? Second. So we have a motion that's been seconded discussion for the discussion. Because if we could put it up on the screen one last time. Darcy, I'm not sure this is what you want. And is but that sometimes does happen where. I'm I'm fine with those changes. I think that I mean, I wish that I had left the findings in, but I didn't. So that's that as far as the changes that have been made. I like the the changed purpose. I am glad to keep the, you know, to reorganize the definitions and keep them in for the most part. And yeah, I'm I'm fine with the changes. Are we take are we were the the deferments are taken out? That is my understanding. Is that correct? The deferments are taken out. That's what it's presented here as. That's right. OK, so yeah, I'm fine. So don't worry about me. We have a motion that's been seconded. Any other comments or thoughts? Andy, Joe, your hand is up. Andy, Joe, please. Yeah, I I just thought for the record and for George's benefit for report writing to indicate why I will be voting. No, I I don't think keeping these definitions in makes this bylaw any clearer. You know, we've got a lot of definitions that people will I believe will be looking for in within the enforcement section. And they're going to be wondering what what can I do with a compostable? And I just don't think it makes it clear. I think it's not as clear as it could be. I think, you know, I understand the desire to accommodate the sponsor and try to keep everything in with that. But we had some belief that we shouldn't have any items that are not enforceable in the bylaw. And I think in trying to accommodate ways to keep those items in while not making them enforceable made the bylaw less clear. So I will be voting no on this motion. OK, you feel that the bylaw is not as clear as it could be for those reasons. Yeah. OK. Any other thoughts from the committee that I'm prepared to move to a vote? Let's start with Mandy. No. Lynn. Yes. Pat. Yes. Andy. Yes. There is a yes. So the vote is four in favor. One against the motion to declare this clear, consistent and actionable is passed. Thank you, committee. I will shut it off to the committee and Darcy. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thanks for the work, Darcy. And by the way, the town council meeting is adjourned. Ah, thank you. Do you expect this to come up on the 29th? We will try, Darcy, to put it on the agenda. It's I could probably be on the consent agenda, right? Maybe. Maybe we can get away with it that way. It can't be per our rules because there's a no vote. Oh, right. You're right. Thank you. OK. So the answer is no agenda. All right. All right. I'll see you later. Yeah. Thank you. All right, we are on to item four and it's only 1210, which was an update on our current pursuit of making recommendation to for finance. I have received four SOIs. I haven't checked my email this morning because the deadline is today. One candidate has not yet submitted an SOI. They've all been given three separate reminders in the course of the last week or so, and four have submitted. If the fifth does submit today, what I'm prepared to do is then make those available to you. We'll talk about that in a minute for you to read, obviously in advance of the interviews, but we have gotten four responses. We need to talk about these SOIs need to be sent to you that I'll take care of, but they need to be posted to the meeting packet at the same time by June 24th. According to our process, that is something I will take care of. It also says that I'm to it. It's to be there to be attached to the public meeting posting. And I was confused by that because I'm stupid. How are they? How are they different? I think they're just attached at the time of the posting. OK, I'll get clarity on that. And it sounds like I have to do two things. Athena will know what that I'll talk to Athena. All right, it's in. It's in our process. I just didn't think about it until now. OK. Do we make these available to the town? I mean, I assume once they are publicly available, they're available to town council members in general. Should I send them to council members as well? I mean, just directly just send them to us. Does our process say to send them directly? I don't think it does. And I can access them through the public postings. OK, so we'll just follow the process. OK. So just a minute, though, when you were with OCA, did they, when you went to publicly interviewing everybody, did you send them all to the council? I believe we did. I believe another. We've never had an SOI process at OCA yet. Oh, that's right. That's right. You're right. That's great. We sent the CAFs, but not the SOI. Right, it was the CAFs. OK. Yeah. OK, good. I'm not going to do that. There'll be a week. Interviews July one is next time we meet. I've told everyone that the interviews will be July one. I've told everyone they'll be during the regular council meeting or during a committee meeting between 10, 10, 30 and 12, 30. My thought was they would interviews would be 15 minutes each, and I would space them out 20 minutes, 20 minutes, 20 minutes. And so that would take us through at least the first hour of the next meeting. And then the suggestion by Lynn had been and we need to weigh in on this that we would then immediately go to deliberation and vote based on the fact that we've got the SOIs. We've got the interviews. We should just go ahead at that meeting and deliberate and vote. Is that the understanding of all the members of the committee? I just have a question because these these processes are going to get so confused in my head because CRC is working through the OCA process for planning board and ZVA now. When we went to interviews for this process, we say the inner we said the interviews would happen at that meeting. But did we say the recommendations would be voted at a different meeting because I know the OCA process for the before that they'd be two separately posted meetings. Does our process say there are processes that either at that meeting or a substance. So we are OK. Our process allows us to make the decision at the meeting. If we wish. And because OCA, I believe, would actually terminate the first meeting and then have another meeting the same night. Is what we chose in our process not to have to do that. Is there any reason, Mandy, Joe, that we should? No, I just because I've yesterday we dealt with at CRC, the OCA process and changes to that for planning board. I'm just getting them all confused in my head. And so I can't remember which one did which. All right. If we follow this, what I'm suggesting, so interviews July one, we would begin the meeting with interviews. Each person would be given a specific time when they would be asked to be present. They're perfectly free to be present. If there is a public meeting, anyone can be present. But I would tell them that you're going to be on at X time, Y time, Z time. No one has in my initial outreach to them. No one has said I can't do the interview at that time. So I'm assuming that they're OK with it. If they're not, our understanding is that it's not mandatory. You know, so if they said, for instance, I could I can't make you know, 1115, but I could make 1230 or 1215, in other words, it's still within our meeting time. You're OK with that kind of flexibility or do you want me? What we told them is it takes place during our meeting. Is it to our window? I'm going to ask people to come at the first hour and give them specific times and OK, and flexible as I can, but still allow us chance to then actually have deliberation within that to our window. OK, then if we do vote at that meeting, I can then present a report with the recommendation to council on July 13. Like their team meeting of the council would then get our recommendation and they could then vote on that on July 13. And then the term would begin August one. This is a two year term. Is that correct? That's my understanding. So the term would be from August one, 20, 20 to what? June 30th, 20, 23. That right? No, 20. Twenty two. To June 20. Twenty two. Andy has his hand up and many having connection problems. OK. Andy. Yeah, I was looking at our process statement again, and I was just to make sure I had it all clear in my head. And I had a problem with one sentence. OK, I can I can bring the process up. In where I'm talking about is at the very end of six, the last sentence of six. Hold on. Is it on the screen? I can put you want me to put mine on the screen? I've got it right here, Andy. I don't know what happened. There we go. OK, it's the end of six interviews. Yeah, right. OK, stop. So we get to the point where it says all candidates shall be invited through though attendance is not mandatory. That's a good sentence. The next sentence, the failure to attend the interview shall not be a reason for disqualification. Do we really mean to say that? Because if somebody doesn't come, they may be disadvantaged by their not having been there. And it may be something that we consider that we give a little bit more weight to people we've heard from. And I just think that that was a deceptive sentence. And it was an unnecessary sentence, given the one before where we say it's not mandatory. And Joe's back and she has her hand up. Mandy, please. Yeah, sorry about that. My internet must be flaky today. I guess I would say yes to Andy, but. You know, I think we wanted to make sure that if they didn't attend, they weren't that so maybe the language could be changed because we were dealing with the OCA process that did sort of disqualify candidates if they didn't attend an interview. I think maybe what we want to say is the failure to attend the interview session shall not remove the candidate from the applicant pool or something. Um, what does it's not mandatory mean? Doesn't that kind of? No, I mean, it is kind of redundant. I get it. Well, I think what the purpose was to assure the candidates that if they either simply do not want to go through the interview process or for some reason cannot meet the time that we've given them that that by itself will not be used as a reason to disqualify them. That's the purpose of that sentence, my understanding. It was just, you know, you could have someone who, you know, we have the SOI, we have, right? We have the CAF for what it's worth. We have the SOI and we may look at them and think this is a very strong candidate, but they were in Timbuktu and out of access to, you know, or they just didn't want to go through a public interview. They just didn't want to be interviewed in front of everybody else. So the thought was that the sentence simply assures them that their decision not to be present for an interview or their inability to be present for an interview will not by itself be a reason to disqualify them. That was the purpose of the sentence. And that's what it says. That's what I thought it said. And that doesn't mean in our considerations, we find out, you know, they were down the street, but just didn't show up. It doesn't mean in our considerations that we can't think about that. It just means we can't disqualify them. OK, I'll drop it. No, I wouldn't come back to it, but I think for the moment I'd like to leave it. That was my understanding of what the sentence meant. OK. All right, I'll leave it. OK. So we are agreed that we will do interviews in July one. We agreed that the interviews will be hopefully 15 15 minutes each and that I will moderate them. Everyone can ask a question and a follow up. So you do not have to ask a question if you do not want to. So especially with the time limit in mind, if someone's already asked your question or something close to it, I hope you will think of just not saying anything. But you are free to ask one and to ask a follow up. We also want to give a few moments to the candidate to ask questions of the committee and or of the finance committee person present who happens to be a member of our committee in this case. So that's what I'm envisioning. And if there are any problems with this, I'll let you know by email. But and I will let you know what the interview times and schedule will be when I finally have it set. Anything else you want to know for me or need to know before July one? You'll get the SOIs. How soon would you like them? I could send them today. But when do you want the SOIs? Now would be great sooner or later. OK, fine. So I will send them as hopefully later today. Again, I'm waiting on one. So I might wait until tomorrow morning, but no later than tomorrow morning. I would send you the SOIs and then I will later send you the interview schedule or list and anything else that you need to know related to interviews. OK, we are going to I can find my agenda. We are going to go to item number nine, which is unanticipated, which is time management evaluation and process that's been sent to us by the council. We need to really spend a few minutes. We don't have a lot of time and people need to weigh in as terms of their own schedule today, but then you sent us a number of documents. We need to think for a few minutes, at least how we want to proceed with this. It's important. I would strongly urge that this committee meet again before the next meeting. Yeah, of course, because that they've thrown, you know, the council has thrown this at you. We're already behind the eight full on the timeline and over time, we do need to revise this process, but we aren't going to be able to do that substantially this year and meet the timeline. So I without. Further persevering, I would just suggest that we meet sometime between now and the end of the day next Wednesday. We could go ahead. I was just going to suggest Wednesday morning at our typical time if people are still available. Yeah, that works. I could do that. Andy, how do you? Is that OK? Yes. Let me just say that by then I would hope to be able to get you even better documents. Basically, I spent more time yesterday trying to get ready for this committee than in refining documents and moving this forward. Having said that, I just want to say I'm glad this has come to a committee and glad it's come to GOL, because this is where I believe it belongs. And I think while we won't have as much opportunity this year to refine the process, it does put it in a place where some people can think about refining the process going forward. There are some refinements we can make this time. I also just want to mention to you because I had already scheduled a Zoom meeting with the staff who support this effort in Town Hall, namely Brianna, who supports all of the notices on the web, all of and Angela Mills, who sends out all of the information to committees, committee chairs, commissions, and and then also the HR, which, of course, is we're having a change. I met with both Evelyn and Joanne, who's interim, will be interim as of the end as of the beginning of July. So I met with them on Tuesday morning at eight o'clock because I'm a collecting for punishment and after six hours of meeting. And we had a very good discussion about the documents, but particularly about what were there any ways that we could increase staff response. And the last email I sent you gives you a history of the various response levels over the last four or five years that Angela, who's with us right now, compiled for me last year. And let me just say, short of a statistical sample or, which is very hard to do with the size of our staff or insisting that everybody, you know, fill in a form or doesn't get paid, which is illegal, you're never going to have a good staff response. It's never going to be representative. And as much as people want to hear, or at least some counselors want to hear more from staff, the reality is what you're going to hear is the staff who have a beef and the staff who want to make sure they give the boss a boost, but you're never going to get a good response or sample unless you have a sampling process which we don't have or the other. So what the group discussed, which I thought was really, really useful, was the idea of sending through town mail an envelope or a, I'm sorry, sending through town mail, a survey and an already pre-printed envelope with no coding to the same thing, same address, and it would just be dropped in in the envelope and to see whether that could encourage increased responses. We've also did talk about connecting with MMA to say, see if they have any further suggestions on how to increase staff response. And there might have been other ideas and Angela actually may want to chime in. I'm open to anyone and all of those, but I really want to stress that regardless of what you do without a statistical sample and without demanding that everybody answer, you don't have a representative response from anybody. So it's a brutal fact of research. Yes. Yeah, I'm gonna follow up on that really quickly because having spent more years in town manager valuations than most of the council, because I did it on the select board all these years, it has been my experience that the, even when we had larger numbers of responses in those years, they were not helpful to doing the evaluation for the reasons that Lynn has already stated. It has been frustrating. I have continued over a long period of time to think about how we could get better responses for staff input is just not happening. And it's not, when it does happen, it doesn't usually happen in a useful way because you don't know what to make sense of a complaint. There was times when I observed that you were getting beefs like because it was around a union issue. And so that you could tell that one particular unit of government, that employees were all putting in very similar comments and that it was a slanted purpose. And it didn't end up being helpful for the purposes that we were going. The other thing that I just wanted to, it came out of the meeting the other night and I think it was something that we do need to talk about. And that is the form that we are presenting to our council to fill out and how to make it a form that's useful for the council both as to what is being asked and how they are being asked to return it because there were problems in both last year. So let me, I'd like to speak to that as well, but Pat, were you on the goals committee? No. Okay. And I don't think anybody else here was either, but the goals committee, when we set up the goals this year and before they were approved by the council, which I did send those goals to you we actually discussed a way to rearrange the evaluation. And again, I'd like some time to talk about those thoughts as we try to come up with a way to format the evaluation without going to too much trouble. I could actually spend a little time before next week and show you an example format because I totally agree with you. Not only did I hate filling it out, but when I had to deal with the responses from 13 people it was brutal, just brutal. So the chair just needs clarification here. You were asking me to post a public meeting for 624 Wednesday from 1030 to 1230, our usual time. It's a special meeting of UOL and the only topic or the only topic will be review and revise the town manager evaluation process. And forms. And the forms and the goals. No, no. We're not going to deal with goals yet. We do, this committee does have to do the goals that are proposed to the council, but they don't go to the council until August. So you're suggesting put off the goals and focus the next special meeting on the process and on the councilor form, the council. So if you look at the things I sent you, the main thing I sent you was a timeline. And at each point in the timeline where a new piece of it is introduced, I said, note one, note two, note three. It goes all the way up to note eight. And we only really need to pay attention right now to note one through four. And I did send you some documentation for note one to four. I haven't even completely scratched the surface of all the documents I have. Sorry. No, I ran out of time. Speaking of running out of time, we are pretty much at time, but so we will meet again in a week. I will have this posted and it will be a special meeting of GOL. I do want to ask one other thing too. Yeah, please. And that is that we, in discussing the, particularly the overall evaluation, but particularly discussing the staff, we did discuss whether or not at some point, and maybe again, not this year, but maybe a future year, we actually have a third party evaluator. Work through that, it's just the problem is, that's another 100,000 we don't have this year. But a third party evaluation where they actually may interview people, do a statistical sample, and in some cases, they provide confidence to individuals that they would not be exposed, may actually help increase staff response if that becomes one of our goals. It also discussed the fact that we're not trying to do a 360, those of you that are familiar with evaluation, because it just is, it's just a very time-consuming process. Again, we don't have time. Do we need to invite anyone to this other than to follow us? Unless you all want to invite someone, I think if Angela, frankly, could be our note taker, it would be terrific because she has many of the files. And has been like the rock solid bottom person for helping with that. I think people who could make a contribution as well, in other words, could speak. Absolutely. Okay. Anyone else besides Angela would be, if she can be present, be helpful. The only other person we might want to talk to would be Brianna. Yeah. And the other person would be Joanne from HR. So they're really all staff people who have been involved with this over time. I mean, unless you want to bring in somebody else. No, no, I have no desire to add to the, it's, this task is difficult enough. And so I also, maybe my colleagues can weigh in here, our fellow committee members. I'm just thinking, are there any individuals we need to have present to assist us in our task? Or would that simply make things more complicated? I think other than staff, and other than the three names you've mentioned, I would not want to invite anyone else. And if we do invite people, we're actually inviting, would it be useful for them to be present as we hash our way through this? I don't want to waste their time either. So do we need them is the question. If we do, I will ask the council clerk to issue them a Zoom invite. If we don't need them specifically to be present, then we'll be the five of us. And hopefully Angela will be present. And that'll be it. Andy Joe has her hand up. Andy, please. Yeah. So I think depending on how we're doing the form, Brianna would be tremendously helpful, but I'm not sure hashing through the form contents is necessarily something she needs to be present for versus when we get to the point of, here's how we kind of want it, how can we make it easy to navigate? You know, which, which might be something that can be done not with her in the meeting, right? Actually it was the one that did the move at my request move the form last year into Survey Monkey. And for short surveys, Survey Monkey is fine. For long surveys, Survey Monkey is brutal. We need to explore other options. And one of the things on my checklist, if you will, would be to talk to Serge to see whether, or to Sean to see if they have any other suggestions. I may also talk with some former colleagues at the university to see if they have software suggestions. And, Andy, your hand up. The only thing I was just for Lynn's sake to know that in my prior life, when I did nonprofit management consulting, I did do a couple of times where I was the one who was hired as a consultant to go out and interview staff for the purpose that you just said. And it is an interesting experience to do it. But I have had that experience. Yeah, and I actually would recommend that, you know, every three years or so that we have a process like that. You know, my, my former professional life included things like that as well. So, but as we pay for that. So, I'm just trying to, I'm trying to listen to where counselors questions and issues have been and see what we can improve this year. And then also starting to think ahead so that we can start thinking about how to improve this for years to come. You know, for instance, Angela just mentioned the other day in our phone conversation, she thinks we should be doing this starting in March each year and not wait until the summer because people's heads have moved on to summer. And I think that's a great suggestion. And, you know, there was, it was really good to get the staff who have been involved in this, giving us, giving me feedback. So, if Angela could be here on, as our minute taker and also as a referent point next week, I think that would be really good. Okay, okay, all right. The only other item I have in the agenda that I think we should touch on is the minutes and whether anyone's had a chance to look at them. I made two small changes and one question I have, I can leave this for next meeting but we could also just get it on the way. Have people had a chance to look at them? If not, I can tell you the two changes I made and then you could just trust me. But, or do you want, that's it we have. And then future items, we've got things coming up but right now we have something next week that's gonna focus our attention. So I'm not gonna worry too much about future items. We're gonna postpone obviously the bylaws for future consideration, your homework, your open given reprieve. Now it's gonna be two weeks later that's the way it goes in this business. Public waste process that Lynn has sent us, we're gonna have to look at but again that's at least two weeks away from us now. So minutes, you wanna just do, let me tidy them up and just send them off. Sounds good. Give you that authority. All right, so I've been given the authority to make two minor changes and then I'm going to send them to the council clerk for posting. That's all I have. And it's only 12, 40. At least it's not six hours, right? We couldn't have suspected it would take so long to get through that resolution. I thought it was, the time I thought was well-spent. Yeah. I didn't think there was any, there wasn't only a dead time. That's the thing, you can't decide something can only be so long. Right. You know, and I think that, you know, I don't wanna sit through six hour meetings either. It was horrible. But, so we need to maybe think how we're scheduling things like adding an extra hour. I don't know. I'd rather meet every Monday. I need to go cause I have a meeting at one and I would like to pee. Well, I've been joining the meeting. It's been an absolute pleasure. We gotta do this again. I say in a week, we get together and try it again. Sounds good. Thanks. Thank you all very much. Andy, be good. Angela again, thank you.