 Good evening and thank you everyone for coming here for an important discussion. My name is Steven Look, I'm a resident of East Montpelier. I'm also on the East Montpelier School Board. My purpose here tonight is to open the meeting. In fact, I have a script that I have to read from. And I will take the meeting to the point of electing a moderator and then the meeting will be turned over to the moderator. So for those of you that are familiar with these types of school board meetings and unfamiliar with, there's no one to run the meeting until you have a moderator on the channel. So again, I apologize for looking down what I'm reading from a specific script. The legal voters of the Washington Central Unified Union School District comprising the voters of the towns of Berlin, Calis, East Montpelier, Middlesex, and Worcester were notifying Warren to meet at the U32 auditorium on February 19th at 6 p.m. To conduct the business included in that morning. I declare that the organizational meeting of the Washington Central Unified Union School District is open at 6.05 p.m. Welcome to the organizational meeting of this new district. The purpose of this meeting is to elect district officers swearing the transitional board and give the board the powers and duties needs to conduct its business. You'll also be asked to decide whether future votes will proceed by Australian ballot and to consider other questions related to issues that only the voters can decide. The voting procedures. To vote on articles from the warning, you must be a registered voter in the town of Berlin, Calis, East Montpelier, Middlesex, or Worcester and pass through the checklist at the entrance. There your name will be checked against the list of legal voters of each town and received a voting ballot. In the voting ballot, I believe it's those yellow pieces of paper that you will show during the voice vote from the floor or deposit at the ballot spots that were voted by paper ballots all. The paper vote is requested. You will be given instructions on the procedure. Non-residents in residence of the town who are not registered voters of the town may not vote, but may be allowed to speak with the approval of two thirds of the assembly. During the voice vote, we request that non-residents please remain silent. Additionally, you may not raise your hands or stand if the physical power is required. We appreciate your cooperation. Minutes are being recorded for this meeting. All motions, remarks, and discussions should be addressed to the moderator. Anyone wishing to address the assembly or anyone responding to questions from the floor must state his or her full name and speak so that comments may be heard by the entire assembly. Article one, to elect temporary presiding officer is what we refer to as a moderator and a clerk from the qualified voters. We will address the moderator first. The nominations are now in order or want to serve as the moderator or their other nominations. I'm really confused how many people were electing and how long they will serve. We are to, first of all, and this article, elect temporary presiding officer, doesn't say moderators, I don't know what that means, and it says a clerk. And then in article three, it says we're going to elect a moderator, a clerk. And a moderator, a clerk, and a treasurer. Are the temporary presiding officer and moderator the same and is the clerk that we're electing in one going to also be the clerk that you will be asked to reelect in three? So the temporary presiding officer and the moderator are one and the same. The temporary presiding officer who we're about to elect will also become the moderator under number three. Is that what you're saying, Steve? Well, I think you do too, but it's very confusing. I just want to make sure we know what we're voting one when so that we later don't get into a tussle about who we were voting for, which article. Okay, I see a point and I understand it. So article one is to elect the temporary presiding officer. And what is a temporary presiding officer? Is that you right now? No, it is not me, I haven't been elected. What will the temporary presiding officer? The temporary corrupt presiding officer, according to the agenda, will take us through article three. So does that mean the temporary presiding officer will not be able to be a candidate in item three? I can't answer that question now, because there hasn't been rules of order decided yet. I apologize, but I'm in no way a spokesman and I have absolutely no authority to make any decision whatsoever. And I apologize for not trying to figure this out sooner, but as I read this about four times this afternoon, I just was terribly confused about what we were voting for when. And I hope somebody could clear that out. But to make sure we follow the agenda, we are electing, the point that I'm taking this to is to elect the temporary presiding officer. Once that position is elected, then that person will continue to lead. Hey, Steven, I'm Kyle Blandes-Swarenello from Middlesex and I nominate Susan Clark, the town moderator of Middlesex, to be the temporary presiding officer at Clark for this meeting. John Gravant, town of Calis. I will second that, it's a nomination. Another nomination. I'm happy to go to Worcester and I nominate Paul Hamlin, the Worcester to be the temporary presiding officer. You'll have a second for that as well. If two nominations are there any others? Hearing none, the nominations are closed. What I'll do is go with a voice vote first. Michael Duane from East Montpilers, we have a question about the phone number. So, Duane, East Montpilers, here in the individual, also serving as East Montpilers' town moderator for the next election, just had a question and we're all friends, trust everybody. We're all friends. I was standing outside handing out agendas and I saw Paul Hamlin and Bill Kimmel walk down the hall about 45 minutes ago, speaking to each other, went somewhere, came back a half an hour later. I'd like to know what Bill and Paul were talking about. Thank you. Before we move on. So, I find myself in an awkward position because there are no rules established other than selecting nominees and voting for them. And I don't have the authority, I have no authority other than to call for nominees, get the names and call for vote and then turn it over. I would have told them a little on our base here, but would it be appropriate to ask each of the nominees to perhaps make a short statement? Yeah, I sense consensus on that. So, if Susan and Paul each make a brief statement about their interest in serving as a temporary presiding officer, you could use either that microphone or you can bend this one you can come here. So, Susan seems to be coming first. Thank you. Thanks. Thanks for the compliments of the nomination. And I am happy to serve if that's the will of this group. I'm also happy to participate if you choose someone else. I'm the time moderator of Middlesex. I have studied time meeting a lot of written a couple of books about local democracy. I'm very interested in facilitating the will of this body, whatever that might be. I suspect you're gonna do the same thing from the next guy. I'm Paul Hamlin, I'm the moderator of the panel of Worcester and after 25 years or more, I was asked if I would consider running for moderator by Matt Groove. And when I arrived tonight, Bill Kimball and I and Colin Neal, who is the attorney to the district, sat down and talked about power towards us. So that's what our discussion was about. Thank you. So nominations are closed. You've heard a brief statement from each of the nominated persons. Susan Clark spoke first. So, and again, it can be voiced, but also if you would mind holding up your yellow cap. All those in favor of electing Susan Clark as your temporary presiding officer, signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed, say no. Aye. All those in favor of electing Paul Hamlin as your temporary presiding officer, signify by saying aye. From my position, I see Susan Clark as having a majority of the votes. Is the assembled group comfortable with that observation? I call for a vote. My name is Matthew DeGrove, I'm a Worcester. I call for it at the end of the House of Representatives. Matthew, at this point, all I can either do is a voice count or a ballot count where people actually turn in their yellow cards and we count them. And stand up. You can't get everybody on. Oh, okay. Or, yeah, we could ask people to stand with you. Yes, Matthew? I'm generally in my trades. Can't be done in a better way. So, we've been asked to do the voice vote by standing. Before I asked people to stand, would it be acceptable with the assembly that I ask Susan and Paul to help me count votes? Would town clerks be willing to quiet please? Justice of the pieces. Justice of the pieces, that's their job. How many justices of the piece do we have here? Okay, put your hands down, please. I want to keep this manageable. I think if five people are counting, that's enough. I'm going to, I request a clerk from each town to assist with the vote. Why don't you just stand and do the question? Why don't you just leave the town? If we're going to proceed with the vote, Matthew? My only purpose in asking is if we're going to be able to voice vote, maybe if people stand and believe we're here, I mean, I'd be a little bit wrong. Okay, so the person making that request would be comfortable with people standing, and then we can see just visually as you group, and again, I'll try to get the decision based on what I see, and if we need to proceed with the area vote. So, I would ask that you stand and hold your yellow card. All in favor of electing Susan Clark as your temporary presiding officer, stand and hold your card. Matthew, you can be seated. All of those who oppose, stand and hold your yellow card. And Zach, the spirit that was presented to me. I'm sorry, excuse me. Is Peter Hut on the form of moderator in the Militia Sex and Slechmore Chair? The way this should be done is people in favor of Susan Clark should stand, then people in charge, excuse me, people who wish to elect all should stand. Then you should be terming them in part. You don't have to ask. Okay, I'll go with Edward. We've seen the voters that supported Susan Clark all in favor of electing Paul Hanlon as your temporary presiding officer. Please stand and hold up your yellow card. Thank you. Take a seat. It still appears to me that a majority favor Susan Clark. So, a temporary presiding officer, Susan Clark, has been elected and Mike Yaw is now done. So, I'll turn it over to David. I want to thank you for your patience. Thank you. I hope I do. All officers of any position in Vermont have to take a note before they can serve. It's not true for moderators. It says any officer who was taken along. Where does it say right now? It's article 58 of the Vermont Constitution. It says, I'm sorry, 56. Every officer, whether you're a local executive or military, in authority under the state, before ever and before the execution of office, shall take and subscribe to the following oath or affirmation of allegiance to the state and also the following oath or affirmation of office. You know, I have to take one as a school board note. It doesn't say moderators, it says every officer. And I noticed in a warning that these positions are merely these officers. We have an effort to deny an officer. So, that's what I mean. Look, I think we're often going to be nitpicking tonight. And the reason that some of us can do it is because this process has become very complicated because rules haven't been followed exactly the way they should have been. And because sometimes rules is, we sort of just have a statement whether we have a yet another vote or if the person's standing up, they've not been clear even to the people who are supposed to be interpreting them telling us what to do. So, I don't want to see us make a mistake. The later this practice for the lawsuit because the presiding officer was not sworn in. It just seems like a very small matter. I'm more than happy to take an oath. Do you get to administer it, Al? I have a sheet of paper that you can sign. This is going to be just like Calvin Coolidge, right? His dad, like, swore him in by candlelight, I'm there. Okay. I have one, too, that can be signed. You've got the official one, Lindsay. I shouldn't say I'm happy to sign an oath. I should read it first, shouldn't I? Read it or not? Oath of office. I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will faithfully execute the office of, this is the one, Oath of office, yeah, of temporary, what am I called? Temporary presiding officer for the state of Vermont and will there in do equal right and justice to all persons, to the best of my judgment and ability according to law? So help me affirmation under the pains and penalties of perjury. Oops, didn't do this right. This isn't. That's where I say it. That's where you say it. That's there. I don't think they are, thank you, thank you. Thanks, everyone, for your confidence and for those of you who didn't vote for me, I will try to earn your confidence. Just a couple of quick reminders. The reminders, we heard a bunch of them and I just wanna go over just a couple more. These are things that town moderators are requested to go over. Please, when you speak, address your comments to the moderator. This helps ensure that we focus on the issues and not on personality. So even if you have a question for another person, address them through the moderator. I'm gonna try to make sure that everybody who wants to get to a chance to speak before anyone is called on a second time. Let's see, we went through that one. Feel free to ask questions. I think this group has already shown they're good at that. Raise your hand if you don't understand what's happening or if you think a mistake has been made. You don't have to be a parliamentary expert. Just raise your hand and ask, here's what I wanna do, how do I turn this into a motion, that kind of thing. The role of the moderators to help you accomplish your business that you intend to do. So if you ever feel that the moderator has made an improper ruling, raise your hand. Robert's Rules allows for the group to vote to appeal the moderator's decision, which is a simple process, nothing personal. Ensure that the moderator serves the interest of the group. You can end debate by calling the question. I think most of us are pretty familiar with that one. If you feel that the conversation has gone on long enough, you can raise your hand, you need to be recognized, and you can call the question. If we do it that way, it does require a two-thirds vote to end debate. So sometimes it's just easier to wait until the debate dies down. So we don't have to vote on calling the question. We can vote in three different ways. We can vote by voice, as we just did. We can vote by division of the House, as Matthew suggested, which is where you stand up or raise a visual. Or if we ever want to, we can use a paper ballot, a secret ballot. This is a really important option to know about if you feel your privacy on a vote is important. Any voter can move to vote by paper ballot. And if seven voters in this room agree and want a paper ballot, then by Vermont State Law we'll have one. Yeah, okay. Great. I'm gonna talk slower now. What's that? Turn it up for them. How's that? Is that any better? All right. I'll read a brief civil invocation. This is something we do at our town meeting and lots of town meetings across the state. Welcome to this five town school district special meeting. We've come together in civil assembly in a democratic tradition that is older than our state itself. We come together to make important decisions. As we deliberate, let's advocate for our positions, but not at the expense of others. Let's remember that there's an immense gap between saying I'm right and saying I believe I'm right. And that our neighbors with whom we disagree are good people with hopes and dreams as true and as high as ours. And let's always remember that in the end, caring for each other, for each other in our communities and together is a far greater importance than any difference we may have. So we are on, I believe, article two. Yes? Oh, yeah. What's the story with the clerk? I think they elected you, Clark, because the motion was for both offices. The motion was for both offices. So should I be taking notes? Do we have a clerk for this meeting? Can I delegate you to be the clerk for this meeting? I'm just, it's our shoe, taking notes. I'm looking to, let's see, somebody who knows about clerks. She's been hired to take notes. She's been hired to take notes. Unless there's any objection, I'm going to count on you to be the actual official note taker for this meeting. Thanks very much. Okay, so on to article two, to adopt Roberts or other rules of order, which shall govern the parliamentary procedures of the organizational meeting and all subsequent annual and special meetings of the district. Is there a motion? And we'll need you to say your name so that, for the record. Barbara McGendrick has so moved. Is there a second on article two? Yes? Yeah. Second. Okay. Can you just say your name in town? John Bury of Annapolis. Great. Thank you. Tell me if you don't get folks' names in town, so you don't need them. Okay. So article two has been moved and seconded to adopt Roberts or other rules of order, in this case Roberts, rules of order, which shall govern this parliamentary procedures of this organizational meeting and all subsequent annual and special meetings of the district. Are you ready for the question? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. And article two, to adopt Roberts rules of order has been passed. We are moving on to article three. One by motion? Yeah. Yes, sir. Thank you. My name is Michael Blaney. He's from here. I move at this point that the table and adjourn the rest of the meeting pending the result of the appeal that our school district and parts of our school district have taken to the Franklin Superior Court, it's known as pending the resolution of that case rather than going forward with the rest of the agenda. So I'm moving at the adjourn the meeting to a time, to an event certain, which will be the resolution of the court appeal at Franklin Superior Court, thank you. So it's been moved and seconded to adjourn to the event certain meaning until the, can I simply get the wording again, the Franklin County Superior Court? Until the Franklin Superior Court rules. Rules. I'm going to amend my motion to the judicial process is concluded, to the judicial process is concluded. Regarding the appeal, I'm sorry. Please. Sorry, thanks for the clarification. The case is in the Superior Court of St. Alden's. My motion is to have a adjourn meeting until such time as the judicial process, which could include any fields from the Franklin Superior Court are taken, the matter is resolved. I just feel I made the best and most prudent way to go forward because as we go forward, disband, dissolve. Hang on, you can speak to the motion after we get the motion on the floor. So the motion to adjourn until event certain, the event being the conclusion of the F-46 judicial process is concluded. Do we have that right? And is there a second? Second. Okay, yeah, straight line, seconded. So it's been moved and seconded. Okay, this is, it's a motion to adjourn is technically non-debatable, but unless there's an objection, I'm going to entertain debate on this motion using the same protocol as motion to postpone. So what I'll ask you to do is limit your comments to this question of whether to put off this meeting or not. So the idea here is debate shouldn't stray into the merits of F-46 or anything else. Please stick to whether this meeting should be postponed and to what time. I think it's a voice of objection to that. I think we should just adjourn the meeting. That's what's involved. This is a motion to adjourn to time certain. Yeah, mm-hmm. My understanding that a motion to adjourn to a time or event certain actually is debatable. It's only a motion purely to adjourn which is not for debate. That's what, yeah, that's what I think too, Matthew, that a motion to adjourn is non-debatable. A motion to adjourn to time certain or event certain is debatable. And so that's the way I'm going to rule on this. So we will open the floor to discussion on this motion. If you want to speak, you should feel free to raise your hand. We do have some portable microphones or if you're bold, like floor, you can walk right up to that one but you do need to be called on. We know that standing up like that can be a little nerve-wracking for some so we're also happy to have somebody bring you that microphone. Preferably not the guy in the wheelchair. That would be great. That would be great if you want to raise your hand. So floor. What would be the consequence would be if the organization meeting will be tabled, so a kind of clarification and also clarify if we went ahead with meetings with that, if it put any, I think there's a solution on if the injunction rules in favor of not consolidating if this meeting will include that ruling from being. So yeah. So first, I would like to know what the consequences are. I believe there's a lawyer in the room. Floor states, is it your name for the ministry? So floor B as in the East Long Peeler. I would like to know what the consequences would be for if there was any harm for us tabling this meeting. And second, I would like to know what is, what if the judge rules and injunctions in favor of no consolidation of going ahead with this meeting would include that ruling for being true or better than that. Okay, well, I think somebody explained that because there's confusion in the room about that. Okay, so floor is looking for clarification and I think that we've got a room full of people with opinions, some of whom will probably be glad to offer their answer on that. You wish you were okay? No, no. Yeah, yeah. So floor is asking a question and there's some hand gestures that seem to indicate that people think that the attorney in the room for the SU could respond to that. He's not a citizen of our five counts. So we would need a motion to suspend the rules to allow him to speak. So is there any objection to allowing the attorney to speak? Yes. Okay, so that means that since there's an objection, we will require a two thirds majority to allow the attorney to speak. So all those in favor, I'm sorry, what's your name? Sure. So to move to Carl, I heard you come up with the other one. Okay, great. Moved to, I'll allow them to speak. Excuse me, Madam moderator, who would you request that the attorney speak? Well, you know, that's a good point. Did Carl? I was reading, he's buying these to request that the attorney speak. You're right. And then decide on what he should participate in. You're right. I don't need to voice. I was doing this. He also needs to understand what his role is here tonight. So. Mm-hmm. Well, what is it? Sure. So, okay, hang on, we can ask him to explain his role if we allow him to speak. And you're absolutely right. I was going with kind of hand gestures that people wanted him to speak, but you're right, we need a motion. And I think, do you want to make that motion? Something like you did, or not? Yes, so moved. So it's been moved to allow the attorney for the school to speak, and is there a second? And it's your name? Allison Medell from Worcester. Allison Medell from Worcester, okay. So it's been moved and seconded to allow the attorney to speak. Okay, so all those in favor of allowing the attorney to speak, it's two thirds majority. So why don't you stand and hold up your, all those in favor, stand and hold up your, yeah. And all those opposed, it is not clear to me whether that's two thirds, which is not uncommon. A two thirds is a hard one to call, so we're going to have to ask our vote counters to come down. We have, do we have, sorry, justices of the peace in the house? If you're a JP and would be willing to come down. May I just ask a question? Can anybody address the issues about why we would not want the attorney for the superintendent to speak? Can you say it online so we can help you? So what you're asking for is discussion on the question of whether, of suspending the rules, which is allowed. So would anyone like to speak to this question of whether or not to allow the attorney to address the body? Yes. John Reavant, town of Calis. So I'm concerned, as we've already heard, the attorney met with the half, or half an hour with us as the superintendent, and he won nominee, may or may not be appropriate, I spoke with the nominees, but this is totally not enough. I will say that, but these, but, but let me finish. Please be polite, so my concern is there's, we do not know why that attorney is here tonight, procedurally, and I would suggest that he explained us why, simply why he's here tonight, fully vote on this, and what he anticipates his role would be. This is supposed to be a simple meeting, voting up or down the items I'm going to mention. Now we have an attorney who'll have a position on this. This is the attorney from Calis, if you could also say he was hired to be here tonight, would he speak any time? That would be helpful. He's not going to be able to say anything unless we allow him to speak. I'm not going to say anything unless we allow him to speak. I'm not going to say anything unless we allow him to speak. My name is Charlie Nairan, and I'm a resident of the Middlesex, and I'm actually one of the attorneys on the Act 46 cases, and I'm in the court of St. Paul. You know, I think, I support, I voted against it, but I retained my vote, and I'm going to vote in support of the attorney's speech. The reason for that is money pulls. I'd like to tell you my view as to what could happen, but you must all answer me since I'm an attorney on the case. I'll be a pro-go political, I've been busted my own, and I've never been in this thing. So, I'll turn to the left, turn to the left, right? Well, Nairan, the attorney's job has done that, so is Nairan in speaking honesty, or is Nairan in busy BSEs? I think, I'm hopeful that you can trust me to be honest, and in the same context, I think I'm hopeful that you can trust the attorney from she for long and then to be honest. He's an officer in the court, and I think we'll give us a good view. We don't have to buy it. Attorney's don't know everything for that sake. We have to turn the rules. So, you know, I change my vote when I say this. So, the motion on the floor is whether to suspend the rules and allow the attorney to speak. We've got a lot of stuff to talk about tonight, but folks, this is when we want to spend our time. Is it, yes? Okay, keep going. Floor? We do have to speak again, but as the public official, to me, having the attorney here today, meant that I've been asked to comply with the law, and I don't know what the consequences are of tabling the meeting today, and I think that's the reason that for all of us, the more information we have, regardless in which side of this, we stand because they shouldn't be sides right now. They're all working towards same goals. Regardless of the side, the more information we have, the better it is. Otherwise, you know, look at the state of the country right now. Carla and I are in Sponphilia. I was slept for in East Sponphilia when we were running a decision. We tried to get the information that we need that will help us make the best informed decision, and I trust the people in this room to listen to people who know what they're talking about and who value it. You ready for the question? The question is whether to suspend the rules to allow the attorney to speak. What I'm gonna do is ask each of you to take a section. Yes. So, can I take a section? Oh, awesome. Yes. And if you could take, who are we having? Yep, we're only taking a section. Yeah, but yeah. So who's taking the section? We're here, and who's taking the section? I'm sorry. I'm gonna do some of you in the room. I have this one. You're on that one. Okay, so listen to mine, is that it? I'm doing this one. Okay, you told me to do that one. So come up here and we'll see if we can't proceed. I'm good. They do this in Switzerland. I've been to Swiss town meetings. They do this. They have a little person on each little section over here. Crazy. Okay, all those in favor of suspending the rules and allowing the attorney to speak, please stand with your yellow thing in your hand. There's a lot of these here. JPs, when you're done, you can walk right on up here and then we'll know that the people can sit down. I'm not sure if they're ready yet. Are they ready? JPs? Yes? Are you taking the numbers? Sorry? So we don't know whether that deserves, yeah, he was collecting the numbers, so I told her. Oh yeah. Yeah, she was gonna do that. I mean, I would love to have somebody else do it. Oh, could the one? Well, if you're gonna have two thirds, we counted the number there. We'll get it from the town clerk's once we get the number. No, it doesn't matter who's here. It's just two thirds if we voted. So it's, yeah. Okay, so that section, does somebody wanna do the calculation? I don't. Oh, yeah, got it. Okay, so that section is free. This section in the foreground. In the foreground here. And back, right there. And this section is, she's still counting. How'd you do? 12. Sorry? It's 38. 38. It's just eight years. That's a calculator. We'll do it again. Does anybody have a photo? No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Okay, now return to your stations. All those opposed to allowing the attorney to speak, please stand. So much clearer this time. I thought it was two thirds on screen. I have three for that. I'm sorry to say it in order. I think we have one in the back. We're not done yet. We're not done yet. We're not done yet. Did you just? I did. The ayes haven't. And we are gonna allow the attorney to speak and now he can even say his name. Road total? Sorry, road total. Road total, sorry. It was 178 to 50. Except for the people who are like what? And didn't vote. Good evening all, and thank you for allowing me to speak. My firm, the New York Bloody Age Team, represents the Washington Central Supervisory Unit. And Bill Kimball asked us, a member of my firm to come here this evening really to help out the Parliamentary Procedure and to help out with questions that arise. So that's really the purpose that I'm here for tonight. I'm not personally involved in the lawsuit or following it like a lot of you, but not interested to be involved. So my understanding of the question before the panel right now is what impact the postponing this meeting would have, is that essentially what impact the suit, if you will, with the injunction, I know there's many components to it, but delaying this proceeding until the conclusion of the court case. Yes, my name is Colin McNeil. I live in Burlington, and so I'm not a part of it. So this is essentially that not being particularly involved in the suit is that one component of the lawsuit is an injunction request. I think that whether or not we go forward here tonight, if we're in court issues in injunction, that injunction would be followed regardless of whether you go forward here tonight. The ultimate ending game of the lawsuit, my take would be, again, when that process is finished, you would be obligated to follow it whether or not you go forward with this meeting here tonight. There are currently, the legislature has acted, and there are by statute certain mandatory things that the statute has directed you to do as a body. I think what one thing you should consider is that until otherwise ruled by the court, the action of the legislature is valid and legal and should follow the court even until otherwise, until otherwise the court has ruled. Thank you. So the motion on the floor is to adjourn this meeting until the act 46 judicial process is concluded. Is there other discussion? I'd like to speak tonight if you wanted. I need Charles Mary again. I'm a foreclosure and I want to get terms litigating act 46. I have a lot of experience in litigation. The defendant successfully defended act 68 against the time of killing him and was deeply involved in that at breaking the early in the statute, breaking the structure of the fiscal law. What I think we're really talking about here is we don't want to end up in the position that victory ended up in when act 60 was passed. Victory was so ticked off, you know, all 50 of them, was so ticked off that act 68 said it's not going to play. So they didn't actually institute the education tax and did not, thus ended up being twice the taxes, the otherwise would have to pay. They cut off their nose to spite their face and I don't want to cut off my nose or our nose to spite our face, even though I'm very eager to see act 46 to go down the lanes. So that's all my way of pre-first. This is what I fully expect to happen. Judge Nello is narrowly focused on this case. We argue that preliminary injunction motion on March on February 15th, he boldly asked him to give us a weather report as to which way he was going. He strucculously boldly did that, but he said he had reached a decision very soon. I also know that the administrative law judge, I'm sorry, the administrative judge was assigning judges to cases like this, that that office was very focused on the policy that should be followed in act 46 and that this is a very important case in the state. So they chose Nello, they put him in there, he's working full time on it and I would bet anybody at least on it that he's going to come out of the decision on the PI by two weeks, maybe three on the outside from the day of our oral earnings. And so what is that? Why is that helpful to us? If I'm right, that means that we can suspend it and this cuts a little bit against the motion for that office here just to suspend it until it's final adjudication. And so back to the cutting of Nello, this is quite a face. If you wait until the final adjudication, that could take longer and it could get us past the July date, July 1, 2019 date and it could create a lot of problems. What I'd like to see is, perhaps I should give this a minute and get a little closer on this, an amendment to your motion that we suspended until a date certain that the judge reaches the decision on the preliminary injunction or motion of the statement which we have filed in the court. That's if he rules in favor of us, quickly, must be us. I'm sorry, great information, if I could. Yeah. On which side are you litigating it? Oh, I'm sorry, yeah, I'm playing that 46. I'm playing it's a term, I'm playing it's a term. I don't know if you're in the attorney general's office. No, I used to be, not anymore. So yeah, no, I'm sorry about that. Ego centers, I thought everybody would do that. So yeah, so if I'm right, if I'm right, we suspended for until a date certain as opposed to an event or not a date. Yeah, an investor of the decision on the PI, if we get a stay, then we've avoided the protocol we will have right now. If we lose the stay, we'll still be able to go forward with this meeting based on the fact that we had adjourned it to that date certain. No harm, no follow-up, a sense of being. So your amendment then, Charlie, is to amend the motion to adjourn, to read the motion to adjourn until the act where the six judicial process reaches a decision on the preliminary injunction. Right, let me be very clear on this. If the PI issues by Judge Mello, it undoubtedly will be appealed to the Supreme, but if it's issued, it will be the law until such time as either the Supreme's reversal or not. So that's why we don't need to go as far as Mello to get past this. So there's a motion on the floor to amend the original motion. That's a sensible idea, but the process is okay. So there is your question directly. Do you have formal arguments in the 15 with file law or cases before that? No. Both the hearing memorandum and the 2035. All the stuff you reported, all you have to do is dig through it and try to figure out how to do it. My expectation is that you will rule in two weeks from our hearing, outside of three. So what does that mean for the 15, 20 seconds to do it? First, outside the eight would be mine. So if it were to be eight, that's what I'd expect that you will rule. But Charlie, just to be clear, your motion is not date certain, it's event certain. Oh, right. That's what you're doing tonight. I bet it's been certain, is that what if I draw, what if the rule's on the none, that we suspend it today or back here, still awaiting the decision? One thing I can be certain of, you can't be certain of anything, but I'm pretty uncertain that you can have a quick consent as part of the court. So there's a motion on the floor to amend, and so we're discussing the amendment on whether to, oh yeah, that's right, is there a second? Thank you. So name of someone who seconds. Okay, thank you. So it's been moved and seconded to amend the motion to adjourn until the Act 46 judicial process is ended to now read until the Act 46 judicial process reaches a decision on the preliminary injunction. Okay, so discussion, your name and time. My name is Allison, my name and my time is just a month later, and I have a question for, sorry, Dr. So I would like to know if you would like that. Good for you. So what Charlie said was once the PI was issued, that would be the law. My question is, what's the law now? Okay, so that's your question, and unless there's an objection, I'll have Charlie answer that question, at least if there are other people who'd like to. I don't know, that's why I'm in this litigation. It has nothing to do with my feelings about a merger. It has everything to do with statutory destruction. The worst of the Supreme Court is that it's empty, it's empty. The worst of the Supreme Court is that it's axiomatic that the Court looks to the intended legislation to decide what the legislation is meant to reach, and the intended legislation in the section that says goals, the intended legislation is to assist local decisions and acts that forward the five goals of Act 60, I'm sorry, 46. You cannot follow, you cannot, you cannot encourage local decisions and actions by forcing them to merge. That is not encouraging local decisions and actions. So in my view, the law is that the SBE got it wrong when they interpreted Act 46. I think at Thompson and Eastern, I'm familiar. I think it was observed earlier that lawyers lose half the time in the case. My experience is that when lawyers are looking at predicting when judges will rule, both lawyers will be wrong. So I guess the first question is, they've been so certain that the ruling would be in three weeks, I suppose. The question is why not postpone for three weeks? And second, I guess the legal question is if the judges, the issues of preliminary injunction, does the Supreme Court have the authority to issue a state injunction having the appeal of the preliminary injunction? I think that state's issue then, what the state of the law would be, if kind of the issues of the state, what's the timing of the issue of that? So those are questions, are you addressing this to hoping Charlie will answer those? Any attorneys knowledgeable about the proceedings regarding either this matter or any application for preliminary injunction that might be available? Okay, yes. Charlie, I'll let you speak. I see another hand as well, yeah. No, who also is an attorney, so. Hi. Hi, I'm sorry. Do you want me to speak for a second? Mike, do you want to walk up to the, I had called on Michael and Ruben, I'm sorry, the lights aren't great, I didn't see you, I'd be glad to let you speak after Michael. Thanks. Let me just weigh in, please, thank you, since I didn't get any motion. Will you all, in the answer to your question, if the court in Franklin County issues an injunction in this case, this is just a preliminary injunction, that can be appealed. So let's say the schools who are appealing get a preliminary injunction. The state could appeal that preliminary injunction to the Vermont Supreme Court. The Vermont Supreme Court in the earth denied the state's request to undo the injunction, or the Vermont Supreme Court could say, we're gonna affirm the injunction. So even those two are possibilities. And then the case will, from that point, go forward. My view, by May, in response to Alice's question, some people think the law is the board's order of November 30th, 2018, that that board's order is the law. And included in that law is the articles of agreement, which we have committees working on this. Included in the articles of agreement is an agenda that we are looking at this evening. So some people think the unit that our district has merged. Now, I happen to see a yellow lust the other day driving by a group two of them said, Washington Central Unified Union School District. So the buses think that we are merged. And the opinion of the superintendent is that, and I think, you know, he was a basic support in the agency of education, that the merger has occurred, he comes up towards order, and it needs to kind of go forward, but the articles of agreement don't really stay that, because we're in this transition process. So the bottom line is Alice, the law is very unclear, very unclear. And will the legislature step in again? The House passed something, but that's sitting on the wall in the Senate committee. So the law is unclear. That's why I made my motion that rather than, you know, that we need to postpone, adjourn this proceeding until we get this more clearly on the court, because the court basis is going away. The only thing that I'll mention in terms of consequences, which was loaded, question I believe, last night, World AIDS Central Supervised Reunion had an organizational meeting just like this, and they voted to postpone their agenda on the, they picked a date. I think the date they picked was like March 7th, so thank you. So last night, another forcefully merged district like ours had an organizational meeting, they voted to postpone and adjourn to a certain date. So what that date could be is a graph. So I think there's another meeting coming up tomorrow night, there's a couple more next week. So the law is unclear, but the law is unclear. That was the basis of my motion. Let's just not make things more complicated by going forward, so thank you very much. So the motion, hang on, the motion on the floor. Yeah, Ruben, I'm with you in one second. I just want to clarify, the motion on the floor is to adjourn this meeting, sorry, to amend the original motion and the amendment is to adjourn this meeting until the Act 46 judicial process reaches a decision on the preliminary injunction. So we're discussing right now whether to amend it to add on that decision on the preliminary injunction piece to the original motion to adjourn until Act 46 judicial process. I respectfully, I am a very patient. You go, boy. You go. No, Charlie. No. P.I. will stay, two slightly different things. Or stay. OK. I have three things. Everybody in this room can read and see that Washington Central Supervisor Review on the side of the school bus is different than Washington Central Unified Union School District. That's my first point. My second point, sorry, Ruben Bennett for each month. Thanks for being here. My second point is that by saying no, no harm no foul has probably sort of casually tossed out, it really bothers me that asking the citizens of five towns to come out and have a meeting to do nothing and asking us all to come out and do that again at some point in the future is no harm no foul. I respectfully disagree. And I'm super struggling with my third point. Oh, and I'm, thank you very much. I will clarify that there is no confusion about what the law is. The law is Act 46. That law, and only Act 46, the law that's in the House right now is the law that will ban right now. We, as elected boards, elected governing bodies, are compelled and to look at both to uphold the law of the land, which is the law of the state of the law, which right now, unless and until something changes, is Act 46. Thank you. It is very natural from middle sex. I mean, it's already good to be here at the end of personal capacity. Louder. So this list of what we're supposed to vote on tonight is it wasn't created by anyone in our five towns. It's not something that people in our five towns want to do. We're being forced to vote on these things. Four of the five towns are appealing that decision, but all five towns, but we really wanted to keep our voting boards. And there are questions about the consequences of what happens if we vote on these items. One of the things that hasn't come up yet is that there is a meeting scheduled at a leave for right after this meeting, and then another one for tomorrow for this transitional board that's going to be making decisions about what happens at the schools. And the Supreme Law lands the Constitution, and it embodies in there one person, one vote. This transitional board gives the town of Twister, and I love you, Twister, but I think you only have a little over 600 registered voters that gives you three members on that board. And the town of Furrin, which has about four times that of many voters, has two members on that board. There is no way that is a model representation. And I think it's crucial that the courts hear out this appeal. It's very common for agencies to be actions, to be a appeal. The courts will make a rule, and this agreement eternally is amendment. We need a final order from the Vermont Supreme Court that settles this issue. Before we go forward to make real decisions in our schools, I have three kids at the Ruby Elementary School. We just found out we're losing our principal. We need a new one starting this fall. Who's going to hire that principal? I know my local school board members, a couple that are about to be new ones, are here tonight. I trust them. I have wanted to hire a new principal. But that principal is going to be paid for in the next fiscal year, and we're here to get the transitional board as a board, and we're mad. That's not right. The courts need to rule on this. We shouldn't do any of the things on this item. We don't have to do any of the things on this list of items because we still have democracy now, and we should postpone all of this until there's a final order from the Vermont Supreme Court. Dean, I'm President at the House. I'm not a lawyer. Pull it closer to the mic. I'm not a lawyer. I'm President of the House. I have thought, Charlie and Michael, they're lawyers of the national. I supported this. My name is Richard Keenan. I'm a resident of the House. I'm not a lawyer. And I thank Michael, Duane, and Charlie and all the other lawyers, people who have been so engaged. In answer to the unfairness of calling people back to this, I will come to five. I don't come to 10 if there's a question. And I didn't like that. That is my obligation. We have to get this right. This is the law of the land at this time. However, the execution of this law has been, I'm going to be polite. They call it imperfect. And the imperfection is coming from people who are not elected. And this really bothers me. We work very hard in these communities, base and civil. This process is driving people to anger and it's splitting our communities. And part of that is because we are losing that piece of democracy that we've all trusted. We have got to get back to that point. And my God, this actually means quite a bit. We are standing up and saying, no, we're going to look at this again, right? We need to do that. And it could be standing up at the face of our legislature, but we have to do that. We are the people. They are supposed to be a catapult to us. Our superintendents, our secretaries are supposed to be a catapult to us. Our voice has been out there loud and growing for four years and it has been falling on deaf ears. I think this is going to make a statement of peace. I mean, this is our obligation to the citizens. I don't know what chances. I'm frankly not very worried about what they can do to us. They should be more worried about what we can do to them for this representative. So just to remind her that the motion on the floor is to amend the motion to adjourn until the Act 46 judicial process is concluded. We would be amending it to, until it would reach a decision on the preliminary injunction or stay. I'm happy to go over to the minister. And I just had two minutes. Nice and loud, Matthew. Yeah, sorry. I'm listening to my voice, so I'll try this to go. I think that there's a reason why the law students was piled with a lot of advocacy in the legislative to try to ask legislators to amend or to change their sentence. But neither of those things has happened yet. And we are not good at this. We are not good at deciding what you think, what is fair or what is not fair about the law that's been passed. So I think that what Ruben said, this is the law of the land. What he said, this is the law of the land for the moment. That is the case that the judgment has had opportunity to rule on the injunction. It's not done so yet. So for the moment, it is the law. It would be an extraordinary thing for the voter to settle here to put our 510s in a position of saying to the state government that it does not have authority over us as a domestic adjourn before conducting the physical meetings. The second thing I want to comment on is the practical consequences for the school system. Given the timeline that we have laid out for us and the legal necessities of morning meetings to let new board members in the morning of meeting the voters to approve a project possibly, the earliest that we could do that, at this point, even if it happened to men, trying to set dates as early as possible to put it, it's roughly in the middle of many that we would be able to pass that. So if we delay, let's say, a month that we're getting into mid-June, at least, in morning, very real, this potential of the school year starts on July 1st, at which point my understanding is that according to the current law, we're restricted to spending only 87.5% over our current year's budget to support the completion of the physical system for next year. So that would seem to me to be a very real consequence of the impact on the people who hire to administer and teach as well as on the quality of the education provided to the kids who attend. The lawyer who currently has set himself lawyers who have time, there is a very real possibility that this track, this merger track, as detested and as tangible as it is to many, may actually come to pass. So there is some value to us keeping two paths alive in parallel simultaneously, one of which is to convince the law team to stay or overturn and the other to leave the law going forward as it's turned to good. So we have a mutual motion on the floor and then we have an amendment to that which whoever got the order in. So I'd like to move the question upon the amendment motion and then we can speak to it. Is there a second to calling the question on the amendment? So I guess I have a name for it. Do you have a name for it? Yes. What question is the answer that's appropriate in this? The question, I guess, is if the ruling on the preliminary introduction or stay happens, let's say on March 8, when is the earliest that a meeting of this nature is at the helm? Because that's the term. I'm sorry, there's a question from Paul. It was a point of information, so I was glad to hear it, but it does sound like a point of information that is about the content rather than the process. So the question has been called, and it's been seconded, on whether to amend the original motion. So right now, what's that? Oh, whether to close debate. Thank you. Thank you. Man, I love having two moderators. Whether to close debate. That requires a two-thirds majority. So what you'll be voting on right now is whether you want to close debate on this question of the amendment. If you are ready to close debate on the amendment, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? No. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. And we have closed debate, and so now we will be voting on the amendment to the original motion. So the original motion went, it was a motion to adjourn until Act 46, I can't read my handwriting, until the Act 46 judicial process is concluded. The amendment, and you're voting yes or no on this amendment, is to change that until the Act 46 judicial process reaches a decision on the preliminary injunction or stay. OK, so if you want that amendment, vote yes, vote aye. And if you don't want that amendment, vote no. All yes. I have a question to point out in a nation. So if I understand what we're at, I'll just see you in the second pen and pen. All right, so what we're voting on now is whether to approve the amendment, and then we will then make a vote as to whether to approve or disapprove the amendment. Motion to adjourn. So the two votes are in question here. Whether to amend, and we still won't move it on. That's right. Thank you. You bet. So if you vote yes, the main motion will be amended. If you vote no, the main motion will not be amended, but we will still have the main motion to vote on afterwards. OK, all those in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. No. I had a feeling. OK, so we'll need our JP's down here again. Please, all my trustee vote counters. That's what we're going to do. We're going to have a standing vote. Yeah, that's a division. So man your stations, staff your stations. We've got one here, one here, one here, one here. Beautiful. OK, all those in favor of the amendment, please stand with your yellow tag. Favor of the amendment, please stand. And now, please stand. All those opposed to the amendment, please stand. Hold up your yellow tag. I'm sorry, did you approve? No, I'm sorry. Yes, they will. OK, OK, so the ayes have it. The amendment passes 171 to 50. So we're now on the main motion. The motion is to adjourn until the Act 46 judicial process reaches a decision on the preliminary injunction or stay. Is there further discussion? Matthew? With the apologies, I would like to move the amendment and make a motion to read a date servant of the four business days following a decision on the preliminary hearing of staff. Otherwise, I don't know when the date is or how it's going to be called. Well, I know Charlie's saying, you know what happened with me. We said it now, we didn't say that the date is or it makes it a little more than a little more than a little more. So the motion is to amend the main motion. So the motion to adjourn until the Act 46 judicial process, now until four days after business days following the decision on the preliminary injunction or stay. And if someone would like to throw an amendment to the date. That's an amendment to the amendment. First of all, I think it's very smart. I didn't think of that. The issue, it issues Friday. Will we have to be Friday? No, we should have it. Matthew suggests some certain number of days after the submission. So I don't know if there's a preliminary amendment. I'll just accept it or not. So the amendment is so you're you were just stating that you were in favor of that amendment. So you're saying Charlie, sorry. Yeah, go ahead. That's the last second. OK, so are you seconding? I'm going to change the amendment to just say March 12. So do you want to withdraw your amendment and restate it? Because it hasn't been seconded, as someone pointed out. Is that what you want to do? I'm sorry, was that a yes or no? Leaving the motion. Leaving the motion to four business days following the preliminary injunction or stay. Is there a second? Thank you. Chris McFay and Middlesex. OK, so the discussion is whether to. So we're back on that main motion and now we're looking at another amendment to the main motion. And it would be instead of when the Aquarius 6 reaches a decision on the preliminary injunction or stay, it would be four business days following the preliminary injunction or stay. It's their discussion. Yeah, the motion has been seconded. Is that a point of order? Yeah. The point of order is the person who made the amendment and it just passed accepts what was just offered as a friendly amendment. Yeah, thanks. I love the idea of friendly amendments, but when you go to moderator's school, they tell you that it's sort of like something that's only on TV. But yeah. So next in line is Craig. My name is in line. I'm Craig Lyon from Calis. I have a question about a three-day morning period required to warrant such a meeting. If you've only got four days, it's not properly warranted. I don't think this is very relevant for Middlesex. Another, what I was guessing, complication is that it would actually be a celebration is if the court rules in favor of the forest rule districts that are here that have appealed that decision, that this meeting never was courted. I think it gets pretty complicated. We try to actually set a specific game after the decision. And also, the court may put some boundaries on what happens at these meetings. We don't know what that order is going to look like. For instance, what the transitional order can look like. So I think it's much cleaner to just wait, see what the court order is, and then figure it out in there. Mr. Wister, I'm just curious if anyone in the room knows how much it costs to hold one of these meetings and what budget is being used. Is there anybody who would like to respond to the question of how much it costs to hold one of these meetings and what budget it comes from? Maybe it's going to be a rhetorical question. I liked the idea of four days after the P.I. It seemed like a good way around potentially having to delay for so much more substantial period of time due to warnings. I don't know the nuances of all those things. So I looked at other people. I was going to make a slight impression that it'd be something like not to exceed seven days to give us all 10 business days, but it was all a little bit more time to plan our schedules to get here for the more of us and get people on the specific day. Do you want to amend the amendment? I'm not sure. Was that not sure or yes, sure? I am not sure. I'm not sure. OK. My name's Barry Bursting, Dallas. I'm there for the kids. I don't know about you guys, but my schedule makes it necessary to have more than four days of something that gets published in the paper. I just think it's ridiculous to set something that close. To be a member of the least popular who thinks we're wasting people's time, I came here to vote to not continue this process. It's not a waste of my time. I took an evening out of my busy schedule to be here to support not working our schools. They're making us feel very strongly about it. And I respect other people's opinions, but I'm going to vote for the original amendment as amended with a date, and then we can let the bodies see one's decisions made by the court, when it's appropriate to warn so we all have adequate amount of time to come back here and vote for the next one. Thank you. Julio Thompson from East Monday, my concern is that voting to hold maybe four days after a court ruling wouldn't comply with the state-of-the-ame law, which requires the town to publish newspaper the date, place, and the time and location of the meeting. And if the court issues a preliminary injunction, that isn't published in the newspaper, and it's not issued by the legislative body. If there's folks here who want to talk about the public data law, I'm happy to hear about it. I'm not an expert on it at all. Just reading the second period of the state's web page about the town of East, that seems pretty clear that it's the legislative body that's supposed to inform not less than a billion but 40 days before a meeting. And the date, time, and place hasn't been suggested here, rather it's an event that won't be published until then. So is there additional discussion on the amendment about the four days amendment? Is that what you want to address? OK. My name is Tyler Donald from Berlin, and I just wanted us all to remember about the timing. My concern is that if you have to order to be better than right, then we need the time to do it right. Right now, I-46 is raw. It's supposed to be merged in June of 2019. There is a bill that was passed by the House about a week or so ago that date this body in a year's extension. But that bill has to go to the Senate, and the Senate hasn't even taken it up yet, and I don't know what the outcome's going to be. So I just want people to remember that we need time to do it right. Thank you. Allen Gilbert-Whister, I'm reading from the Secretary of State's website, the open meeting handbook that is there. And this is a power phrase of what's in the lawyers' room of the subject they want. On VSA 312c4, notice when adjourned or continuing a meeting. When a meeting is to be continued to a new time or place, the public body should announce a new time or place before adjourned. Otherwise, the subsequent meeting is considered a new meeting. Unless it's completely adjourned as above. So in other words, the meeting actually doesn't end. We have the same meeting at four business days, after the report decision, after what happened tonight, that doesn't have to go, apparently, in the same morning process. I believe what you're saying, if I'm right, Allen, is that if we name a date and we're adjourning to time certain, we do not have to re-worn the meeting. However, if we, I think, if we adjourn not to time and date certain, but to event certain, then we do have to re-worn. I can't answer that. I don't have a lawyer, and if we start, the lawyer's talking in this room and they really be here a long time. I'm probably not sure you're for sure. Can you hear your name? Oh, my name is T. Indian Brown, I'm a panelist. I was wondering if you could read your board situation. This is a, I'm told the court makes a decision over at the latest, say, March 15th, just so we know we can get the ball rolling, and we still have some amount of time to make decisions. However, we are going to wait a little bit to see if we know more information, as I say, March 15th, which gives us a specific date, so we don't have to worry about adjourning. So you would amend, I don't know if we can amend this amendment, if you could try amending this amendment, rather than saying four business days following the preliminary injunction, you would, I think we have to vote this amendment down first and then we have to pick that one up. Or vote this one up. Your suggestion, and so you'll need to stick around to make that suggestion, is to amend the original motion to adjourn until Act 46 judicial process reaches a decision on the preliminary injunction, or stay, or March 15th, whichever comes first. Yes, or whatever date you want. It then works yes, or March 12th. So hold that thought. We are talking about the four business days amendment. Is there further discussion on the four business days amendment? Seeing none, we will, ready for the question on the four business days amendment. This is, you're voting yes or no on the amendment to take that main motion and change it so that it reads that we would motion to adjourn until Act 46 judicial process reaches a decision until four business days after the Act 46 decision reaches its preliminary injunction or stay. Oh God, I just should have better handwriting. The original motion is to adjourn until the Act 46 judicial process, I'm sorry, the original motion has been amended, you amended it, so the original motion is now. Motion to adjourn until the Act 46 judicial process reaches a decision on the preliminary injunction or stay. That's how it currently stands. And the question is whether to amend it to add the four business days piece in. So it would say the motion to adjourn until the Act 40, until four business days following when the Act 46 judicial process reaches a decision on the preliminary injunction or stay. So if you like that amendment, you'll vote aye. If you don't like that amendment, you'll vote no. All those in favor of the four days amendment, please signify it by saying aye. Aye. Yes, hang on, opposed, no? No. The noes have it, and the amendment fails. The question has been called on the main motion, although we did have some discussion on the second amendment that people wanted to do, but the question has been called on the main motion as amended, is there a second on? So the question has been called on the main motion, the motion is to adjourn until the Act 46 judicial process reaches a decision on the preliminary injunction or stay. There's no discussion on this. Everybody understand a yes vote is for the motion as amended. Do you have a point of order? I'll either vote again or chair. No, no, no. I'll ask the real second. Well, that's good. I have a question. I'm concerned that by not saying the game is certain, we are going to be asked a little more in order. The question has been called on whether, the question has been called, yes, we vote on calling the question. So if you are done talking about this main motion and you just want to vote on the main motion, you'll vote yes on calling the question. If you want to continue discussion on the main motion, vote no to call the question. Does that make sense? Yes, yeah, yeah. The main motion as amended. So it's now our main motion. So if you would like to end discussion and call the question signified by saying I, opposed, no, that's the two thirds majority. We're going to have to do it again guys. Okay, so it's unclear to me whether that's a majority or not. So please can we have our voters down here and we're going to divide the house. Staff your station, everybody, staff your station. We are voting on whether to call the question. We're voting on whether to stop talking about the main motion as amended. All those in favor of ending debate on the main motion as amended, please stand with your yellow cards. Okay, and now all those opposed to calling the question on the main motion. This means that you want to keep on talking about the main motion. All those opposed, please stand. I just figured they were looking ahead, saying put your head in the lock. 60, okay. All right, and the results of your vote are 154 to 60. A two thirds majority takes 142. So the ayes have it and we have called the question on the main motion. So the main motion, the motion as amended is to adjourn until the Act 46 judicial process is reaches a decision on the preliminary injunction or stay. That is the motion that we are on and we called the question, so now we have to vote on that. Paper ballot. So we need seven people who want a paper ballot to raise their hands. There's been a request for paper ballot and if there's seven people who want a paper ballot, then a paper ballot there will be. So yeah, so the question is, is there an opportunity to vote on or discuss the amendment that was sort of chattaly discussed earlier on? And the answer is no. We are gonna vote on the main motion. If the main motion passes, then it passes. If it fails, it fails. Trying to figure out about reconsideration. So I think there may be an opportunity to reconsider it afterwards. But right now it's the question of the paper ballot. Are there seven people who would like a paper ballot on this article? One, two, three, four, six, five, seven, seven. Okay, so there's seven people who have asked for a paper ballot. Point of clarification? Yes. If we vote yes on this motion to propose a meeting until and that's certain. If, for example, on March 8th, the court issues its opinion and the state or the American government with this meeting is to lose what date is not. It would have to be warned. So it would have to be warned because it's still a meeting. Point of information? Yeah. So the meeting would have to be warned. The earliest that would be would be in April. The earliest that would have to be would have to be in the late May or late May election. So yeah, we're calling on, yeah, we called the vote. It's true. It was a point of information that turned into it more. All right, so what we're gonna do now is have, we have a paper ballot that's been called for. And so you're being asked to vote yes or no on the main motion as amended. If you vote yes, then you are in support of the motion to adjourn until act 46 judicial process reaches a decision on the preliminary injunction or stay. If you vote no, then you're voting against that. Madam, on the other hand, yeah. Rosemary Morris, Burlington clerk. We have paper ballots at each of the stations, but so everybody will be using the same ballot. Don't use your own. Yeah, so these yellow things are not ballots. There are blue ballots. And so I think what we're going to do is you're gonna line up in front of your town clerk and you'll have your name checked off and you will cast your ballot. If we go by section of the room, what do you think? Where's the ballot parking? Okay, so this section, the one closest to the town clerks, go ahead and vote. Everybody else can hang out at your seat. We'll start over here. Bless you. Oh, I see. So they're going to pick it up and then vote here. The ballot box is up here now next to the clerks. So you'll have to make your way back up to put your ballot in the ballot box. The vote on whether to adjourn, motion to adjourn until the act 46 judicial process reaches a decision on the preliminary injunction or stay in favor 168 opposed to 81. The motion passes and this meeting is adjourned.