 Okay, so we should probably reopen it so I'm reopening the meeting at 705. I'm going to ask the board members all to identify themselves. I'm Donna Bate. I'm at large. I live in Montpelier, Jim Ward, very city. Doug. Doug. You're mute. Of course. Not quite. Not failure. Mel. Mel Chambal, very city. Justin. Justin Dreschler, Montpelier. And Kim. Kim Cheney at large member. And Donna, can I just give a little spiel about the reason why we're recording? I think that should be on the record. Absolutely. Okay. So I noted with a meeting open at 702. As I was putting the attendees together into the minutes, I noticed that Orca media was not here. As a result, it seems that we would not have a recording of this meeting due to the circumstances and not because of any obligation on the part of CVPSA to always record meeting. When Orca is here, we have recorded this one. Again, we have recorded this meeting because of the situation with the meeting laws at this particular meeting. But this is not our intent for this to be a future practice. It is just a practical decision based on the fact that Orca is not here in order to apply with it to comply with the open meeting laws. Okay. And anyone who speaks, all of us, we just have to remember to say our name, please. And particularly our guests. I know we have Joe. Jeff, you want to introduce yourself full name, sir. Yeah. In turn chief. And Carrie. Oops. Maybe just listening. I'm here. Carrie McClell. My player P dispatch supervisor. Thank you. And the press, I presume is David. All right. I'm sorry. Are you planning to discuss on the agenda? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. The annual what? Don't you have a write up of the annual. I have the annual report. Yes. It's just shared. We can put it under other business. If you want to talk about it. Okay. Fine. Okay. So we're going to. I'm asking that we, without any comment on the agenda. That we're going to accept it unanimously by consent. Okay. And then we, I asked for public comments again, because we weren't recording before. Any public comments. All right. And then it's approval of the January 12th board. Minutes. Entertain a motion. So moved. Thank you, Mel. Second. Thank you, Doug. So we have a motion and a second to accept the January 12th minutes as given. Any comments about the minutes. Okay. All in favor say, I move your hand or vocalize. Anyone opposed. Passes by unanimous consent. Thank you. Thank you, Justin. Approved town warning for disillusion. What the town warning says. Is. Shout the voters of central Vermont public safety authority. Pursuant to 24 a. VSA. Chapter. 901. 50. A. To. Vote to dissolve. CVPS a consistent with the plan. For disillusion adopted by the public safety. PSA board. And that was the language we were advised to have placed on both town ballots by our lawyer. Discussion about that. I have a question. I have some comments. Question. Okay. We have. Yes. Kim. For Jim. When we voted on this, he said that your eye vote was. So you could. Renew the question. I wonder if you're going to do that. Well, maybe Justin, you can help me out. Perhaps I put these on the wrong order. Perhaps we should go to the. I was, I brought up the. The warning. And so I did. Get a draft from our lawyer. And I had to turn all the red and dashing outs. To clean. Type. And I sent you the draft. That we got from Eli. For the final, his suggested that the final disillusion plan. Donna, I actually think that it might make sense. I think we might have the cart for the four, the horse here. I think we should probably go into executive session to discuss. The legal advice that we got. I do think that that. Definitely informs the decision on this. Whether it even presented the solution plan. Thank you. Okay. I was on a unmute fast enough for you to skip right over me. I felt it was intentional. Wait a minute, Stephen. The board is trying to make a decision of how, what order it wants to go in. Any. I mean, it makes total sense to me. Justin. Yeah. I think I do think that. Yeah. I'm Donna. So Steve did call me. He was having trouble getting in. So I think it makes sense to allow him to give general public comment. Because he was trying to get in. I understand that. Whether it's about this particular thing. I think it can wait. But if they, if Steven, the general public comment. No, I just wanted to get all the board. The comments first. Okay. Jim, do you have a comment about. Us going into executive session to discuss our legal advice on. Yeah, I do. And I think this is more appropriate in public session. I tried to find the minutes. I just for the 12th, that was our last meeting, right? January 12th. Yeah. I attached him to the tonight's agenda. Yeah, somehow. But because I just went looking for him. But anyway, the point I was, I was going to make was. I was of the impression that the motion was. That. The committee that was appointed would. Arrange with the attorney. Give him an overview of what the, the issue was so they could go research and they were going to report it. And I think that was a good point. I was kind of. I'm just wondering if, if others understood it that way, or whether it was just me because I was of the impression that. That the attorney was going to speak to the whole board. And I think that's. What I. Okay. I guess I look at $300 an hour and say. But we didn't authorize anyone to make any decisions on costs. We just authorized people to set up an appointment with. The attorney. Here's what the motion read in the minutes. Justin moved to allocate. $2,000 towards a hiring of an attorney to discuss Mr. Whitaker's lawsuit. The potential disillusion of C. The intersection of these things and possible options for the board. And that's what. That was the funding for it. I don't know. Maybe, maybe I was the only one who interpreted it that way, but I thought we were all going to be meeting with the attorney. I'm disappointed that we weren't. Okay. You can. In executive session, Doug and Justin, there were three of us there. So we did try to get, you know, a good, the officers are all there to have a good perspective. And so again. He's not here. And obviously we didn't understand it that way, Jim. Sorry. Okay. Maybe I was in the minority. Right. There was a. I think if we. I think we should go. I think it makes sense to go into executive session at this point. Unless we accidentally break privilege. Okay. All right. That's good. So a Steven, your comments now. Yeah. I want to just inform the board that. Again, it's a holy inappropriate to. Ask each town whether they want to. Withdraw. And then similarly dissolve it before they've even weighed in on that. It's really disrespectful of the voters. Of which who have been funding this operation. For many, many years. And people, others have worked on it. For a decade or more. So I think you're. Kind of being impetuous and reckless. With this hurry to get rid of it to try to. Corner the money for Montpelier. But. You should also know that in the legislature. Yesterday that. They finally heard from. The chair of the regional dispatch work group. And the engagement level and the enthusiasm for resolving these types of issues. Was extraordinary. To all viewers. And the. 20 million dollars that's sitting there. Is not likely to find its way in the Montpelier's hands. Quicker. By dissolving the qualified. Potential. Authority or vehicle. To accomplish this. So I think you're reactionary. I think you're. Reckless. I don't think you're adhering to the purpose. And the charter. And to blame. You know. I read the dissolution plan. And this is the first I've seen of the annual report, which was required to be made available. Prior to the public hearing. In December. So. Y'all are running so rough shot over process and law. And the charter. That you really ought to just take a pill. You know. Okay. Any other comments. Wrap it up, Stephen. Jim. Okay. Thank you. And Jim, you have your hand up and then. I just wanted to make a call. I just wanted to make a call. I just wanted to make a call. Jim, you have your hand up and then. I just wanted to make a comment on what Justin said, the risk of continuing to talk about it is not breaking privilege. There is no privilege. The risk is being in executive session and just in discussing something that's not exempt from from public view. So. I'm not sure. Whether or not hiring the attorney is something that. It is under the umbrella of possible. litigation, but the dissolution part is not something that I don't think that was an exception. But I'll leave it at that. I agree with that, Jim. I think that when I said to go to the executive session, I think what we wanted to do is be able to reveal the legal advice that we got during that meeting. And then we can come out. I would want to do it for the very limited purpose, but I don't if as soon as we reveal legal advice here it could potentially be a break of privilege. That's totally appropriate. Yeah, Steven, I do want to just don't I just want to comment regarding Steve's comment. I view these things dissolution and voting whether to stay in the authority is just concentric circles I don't see any conflict at all between the two. TV PSA is not dissolving TV PSA TV PSA is putting the question before the voters nobody's taking this thing out of the hands of the voters, quite the opposite. The voters can do whatever they want. You can advocate as hard as you want for them for people to vote against the solution. In fact, that's what citizens do. That's what participating in democracy is. And so this is, this is not an autocratic decision by any means. It's a it's the first step in allowing the voters to have their will. You know, be be heard and the exercise. So, you know, right editorial, you know, David, I'm sure we'll, we'll surely we'll print it. Try to convince you. You can't tell me that you can't tell me that that word dissolving it because we're not. I guess my point is that you were appointed to the board to effectuate and promote CV PSA effectiveness and instead you're undermining it. I mean, I guess I would say that I think I was pretty clear in my email that I think that the, that the oath that we took is inconsistent with your, your perspective. But I think that we should go into executive session I just want to make that clear that CV PSA is not dissolving TV PSA we have no authority to do that. All we can do is put it before the voters. Okay, now that question needs to be voted on again. So I do want to agree with you. Let's see what the legal advice was. I'm sorry to say that I don't have the language right in front of me for the executive sessions. I don't know if Justin knows it. It's just I don't know that we're going to executive session to discuss and legal advice, present the legal opinion that you receive. Okay. I usually try to quote the charter language but I don't have that print out in front of me. Okay. A second to Jim's motion for executive. I'll second it. Kim seconds it. Okay, further discussion. Board. All right, let's vote how many want approved going into executive session. Okay. Okay, with somebody else. All right. I think I got everybody have a motion to come out of executive session at 755. So moved. Thank you Mel second. Second. Thank you Jim. Favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed. Great. So in the discussion of the dissolution plan would entertain a motion to accept the plan as presented this evening. So moved. Thank you Mel second second. Thank you Doug. Further discussion. Okay. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed. No. No. Okay, so we'll do a roll call. Jim Ward. No. Kim. No. Doug. Yes. Mel. Yes. Justin. Yes. Yes. And then Donna, after you're done with the vote, I'm just going to need the exact language of the motion. Okay. And mine's a yes. So we have four yeses and two noes. I'm sad Jim that you couldn't see the reason for it, but I understand differences. Thank you. Okay. So Donna. Yeah. Sorry Jim. Well, I was just going to say that, that I certainly understand the motivation behind it. And it's a matter of how comfortable you are with just leaving it alone and let it sit. I don't think it's going to be fine and I don't think Whitaker's going to amount to anything. I think he's going to end up having no one defending him or he's just going to be on his own. But that's okay. I'm fine with standing alone. Okay. Actually. It's a two thirds vote. Isn't it Justin? It is exactly two thirds. It's four and a half. So it doesn't pass. Sure does. Does it. Four out of six is two thirds. Okay. However, One thing you haven't done is figure out whether there's a two thirds majority of the voters represented by the people voting. Yes. I'm sorry. We're just talking about the board for the actual dissolution plan. And the motion was to accept the. Delusion plan that was presented tonight. Or something. Kim, please. Justin, you said you wanted the motion. No, hold on. So Kim is. Kim is right about that, Donna. Can I get the motion that can we come back to Kim's question because I think we followed the procedure fine, but let's just, can I just get the motion to the minutes are right. I think it was. The motion. It was to move to accept the. Right. No, this is a decision plan. Pardon. Yeah. Okay. It was to move to accept the dissolution plan. Yes. That's all it was that was presented tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The chair to the board. So, Donna, what Kim is saying is that the charter language says upon the affirmative vote of directors representing at least two thirds of all votes entitled to be cast on behalf of all members. So you need to have at least two thirds of the directors there. And then you need to get two thirds of those is how I read it. Yep. Okay. That's me too. Yeah. I tried to. Count that up. I think. Donna. Represents all the voters. And probably. With a two month period of votes. It could be two thirds, but I don't know that. You got one Barry. And one Barry votes. Yeah. Okay. That's me too. Yeah. I tried to. Count that up. I think. Donna. Represents all of them. And probably. With a two month period of votes. Could be two thirds, but I don't know that. And one Barry vote. Yeah. It would be close. But I think the thing to do is that our, let's count it up in our leisure because. The votes are what they are. In order to answer that question, you're going to have to look at the checklists, which. It's a pain in the butt. It has to be done and we don't have a legal law. We have a legal law. We have a legal law. And we have a legal law. And I think Jim has gone to the section of the charter that talks about. That. There has to be two thirds of the voters from our. Municipals represented in the people who voted for this. So then you have to add up the population of Montpey or Barry. And then I'm not there and Barry. I can't. I'm not there. I think the vote is vote. It's a matter of a large voting. Yes. So we would add those populations. Montpellier twice, Barry once. And then for my vote, it'd be worth the population of Barry and Montpilier. Yeah, there's probably. Then the, the nose are the population you represented Barry, which really is only. I mean yours. And then Kim, who's one at large. Yeah. Yes, Doug. I used to think I was semi-intelligent. Now I'm convinced that I may not be. You mean our vote as a board tonight depends on the number of voters in Barrie and Montclair? Yes. That's what the charter says. I think the lawyer just said two-thirds of the board vote, but it does have that other language in the charter. I think the idea, Doug, is that for some reason the CVPSA was made up of a bunch of small towns that had no people that they couldn't hold everybody else hostage. I think that's the theory behind it. It's like the House to represent this versus the Senate. Well, I think the theory is a little messed up because you'll never know exactly what the numerical breakdown of a voters are in Montclair and Barrie. But you won't know that until March. Then you're not going to be sure. This is just to put it before. Yes, Jim? Maybe I'm simplifying this, but I just got that if you're appointed from a town, from a city, you represent that population of that city. If you're elected at large, you represent both, which means that that vote will actually carry more weight than the appointed ones. You add it up and it comes to two-thirds of the population. I think it's exactly what Justin's saying. It had to do with big states and little states. I know, but it states it. Big counties and little counties. Chittenden runs the state because Chittenden County has more people. Okay, but whatever it is, Jim, Kim won't accept this vote until we get an exact count of the populations that had to work. I think Kim said we should work it out later. Kim said let's work that out later and just make sure that we're right. But if we can just run it by Eli. Yes, but if we don't pass this, then the warning can't go and the warning has to go at noon tomorrow. So it is time sensitive, Justin. I think we just passed it. This vote is good to go. Yeah, Kim said this is good to go. He just thinks that we should make sure we do the research and make sure I didn't hear that right in the back end. Yeah. Well, can I comment? We have to leave the charter and we don't know the number so we'd have to calculate the install. So can I comment on this? Sure, Steven. So maybe I'm thinking of this overly simplistically, but Jim and Mel, each appointed by Barry City, their vote cancels each other. The two at large votes, meaning Donna and Kim cancel each other, and all that's left is Justin, and he's from the smaller city. So no, it's Justin and Doug from the smaller city means it didn't get two-thirds because Barry is not two-thirds of the voters. Please. Mel and I do not cancel each other. She has the total population of the city that she represents. That goes to a yes. Doug's total population. Doug, are you appointed or elected? He's at large. Okay. I'm appointed. Appointed. So he gets the whole population of the city. You have Doug and Justin left. So you have two of Montpeliers. You don't split the difference. I represent every single person in the city, and Mel represents every person in the city. All of our votes get 100 percent credit toward whatever the vote was. Okay. I think we did it without any problem at all. I think if Kim wants to make a mess about it, for what? What can he do? I just want to account it. I have had two theories. I do think during the words, Mel has her hand up. You've said a lot, Kim. Mel, if it were necessary that we get account of all the people in each city, and then figure out how we weigh in, what would be the point of us even being representatives? I thought the deal to being a representative is that you're representing whatever your constituency is. If it doesn't really count, why are we even doing this? And I'm saying that because I think we're working against each other again. I would love to see us make a decision and then not turn on each other to prove a point. Thank you. Thank you. Mel, I just want to respond to that. No, Kim, wait, Holt. We've been in this discussion a long time. I really something new. You're saying something brand new, Kim. Well, I'm just going to point out that I'm. Wanting to make sure we follow the charter, that's all. Yes, yes, yes, I'm uncertain whether that's the case. And I'm hoping that that's what the lawyers were in the conversation for. Yes, it would be easy to figure out tomorrow. I just don't have the list in front of me. OK, so we have Pat. We have passed this dissolution plan. And now we need to look at the warning that would go on the ballots for Barry and Montpelier. It's asking the voters, as Justin pointed out so well before, to make a vote to decide whether or not to dissolve CVPSA. All in favor of this warning, I want a motion first, sorry, a motion to accept this warning and place it on the ballots. So moved. OK, Doug, second. Further discussion on the warning, Doug, your hands up. Any further discussion on the warning? OK, all in favor, say I. I. All opposed on the warning, say, nay, I didn't see a hander. I'm going to vote I. I. OK, Jim. I was going to abstain because I'm a little confused right now. The first vote was to to dissolve. This vote is the wording of the vote, right on the ballot. It this is the wording that goes on the ballot in both cities. This is about the wording of the warning. Yes. Right. OK, so that means it passed unanimously. Thank you. We've already had our executive session on the lawsuit. And we've already within the delusion plan approved additional funds for the legals. Now, annual meeting is an other business. And I. Amid to the error of not getting it on the website. It was an inverting error. I really just forgot it. I did get it to the towns, both cities, for their annual report on time. So I would like the board to accept that. Indeed, I made a mistake and I won't ever do it again. Lots of reasons. And and I would appreciate the board accepting my humble attempts. And recognizing that it was an error and that it was an inadvertent error and that I won't do it again, the board would make a motion that would would be good. I have some comments on the actual wording, but subject to that, I. I'm asking about the error I made of not getting it onto the website, as promised. OK, I have no problem with that. So I would move to forgive the error. OK, I promise. No second. Thank you. Any other comment? Stephen, you wanted to talk about this. OK, all in favor, say I. I. Any opposed? No, good. Thank you. Thank you. I do have a question about the wording of it. You can question all you want about the wording, Kim. I had many questions about some other annual reports. Go right ahead. In the third paragraph, you say the cities in capital fire, submitting a winning application and were awarded 2.5 million. That's not what happened. There was a conditional appointment to commit conditional acceptance and no money has been awarded. OK, I understand. That's how you worded it. That's not how the cities worded or Joe Joe's here. And he well, you know, I was sitting and heard commissioner Morrison. So I understand that you disagree with that. Donna, it isn't a question of my opinion. It's a question that no money has been awarded. And it's a conditional approval. And until that's changed, that's not a factual statement. I'm sorry, I disagree with you. I mean, I heard what Commissioner Morrison said right there in the joint committees. Well, I did, too. We're not a conditional thing about governance that indeed they were going to be in the second round. So I disagree with you, Kim. So that's OK. Well, Madam Chair, I apologize, but I need to excuse myself. Oh, but thank you for being here for all the crucial votes. Thank you, Jim. Good night, Jim. So we have to agree to disagree, Kim. Well, I just think it's factually wrong, and I think it's leading people into a bad understanding of where we are. OK, noted. OK, anything else under other business or other people want to make a comment about the Anna report? That's fine. OK, no other business for this body. Well, congratulations us for getting through a very difficult meeting. And thank you all and have a good evening. Thank you.