 Yep, and you're alive now as well. Okay. So, um, meeting this meeting this June 1st. 2021 meeting of the board of registrars. Like to call the meeting to order as we are all here and we'll do a roll call attendance. So, um, Susan Audette present. Um, Demetrius Ross. Yeah, present. Jamie Wagner. And Jacqueline Gardner. Okay. Um, we can all see each other and hear each other. So that's all set. And just mentioning that this meeting is being recorded and, um, held via zoom note pursuant to Governor Baker's orders for open meeting law meetings. And I want to also let you know that as in the past, Amber Martin will be taking minutes. And she may be called away from the minute taking if someone comes to our counter because we open to the public today and we are only a two person office. So she's covering the counter and she's covering the minute taking. Okay. So that gets that out of the way. Jamie Wagner will be chair for this meeting as she was elected chair for the last meeting and this meeting as a continuation of the May 24th meeting. Okay, so with that I'm done talking Jamie take it away. So the first item on the agenda is public comment. So I just give you hands raised already so I suppose we could just start with that if nobody has anything else to add to go ahead. So, I'd like to make a motion understand that Attorney John Boniface is in the audience. Can he speak before public comment or make some comments before the right the regular public comment. So my motion is for Attorney John Boniface to speak before regular public comment. Yeah, it was no second. We need to vote on it if the motion doesn't carry. I do see I mean john second on a list so I think I don't know how is that the order that they come in but he is second so if we let Adrian speak first and then john would be right after her anyway. So let Adrian. Yes. So do you mind or amber do you mind just. Oh no I am coho sorry. Thanks you might I see her hand her name's gone so she hand down to that was by default. Okay. I'm waiting for Adrian to speak first is that right or am I speaking. John she put her hand down and you're the next on the list so she re raised her hand so your next on the list to go anyway so it's your turn. Okay. Thank you everyone for having this time for public comment. Sorry hold on one more. Thank you everyone for having this time for public comment my name is john Boniface I'm a resident of Amherst, and a long time attorney on constitutional law and voting rights law. I wanted to speak today on public comment as to the matter before you with respect to the case of Terry, why Alan at all the board of registrars of the town of Amherst I know this is not on the agenda for today's meeting. I did a letter to the Amherst board of registrars yesterday which discusses this case and why I am urging that the board of registrars and are immediately into a consent decree with the plaintiffs to be approved by the court in which the board agrees first to certify the wrongly invalidated signatures with a voter veto petition admits therefore that the voter veto petition met the 5% threshold and establishes the date for the election on the issue specified in the voter veto petition. As you know, this case is now before the Massachusetts Supreme judicial court where it was recently filed, and the plaintiffs have presented overwhelming evidence that for at least 76 voters in Amherst, their right was violated to have their signatures on this petition. The constitutional right of voters to have their signatures validated on petitions for local ballot measures. When their signatures and addresses are substantially as registered quote unquote is as fundamental as their constitutional right to vote in an election. In this complaint, which I urge you each of you to review carefully if you have not already done so, and it is available via the link I provide in the letter in that footnote. The plaintiffs show that the board wrongly disqualified signatures where the signatories did not sign a middle name or initial on the petition, even though the middle name or initial was listed on the town's voter rolls, or did not sign a middle name or initial on the petition when the middle name or initial was not listed on the voter rolls in direct violation of existing law did not abbreviate lane or street on the petition, while the address on the voter rolls abbreviated such words such as lane or street. The signatures were denied who people who live on an avenue named crossbrook spelled out the complete name of their street on the petition while the voter rolls erroneously list the street name as cross BRK people who did not include the abbreviation in the words court st or rdg after their street address when the voter rolls included these words, even though there are no other streets in town with the same name as the streets where the signatures reside, and included in their address on the petition was the name of the town in which they resided Amherst. These are different signatures that were denied the state Massachusetts and or zip code even though the name of the town, state and or zip code was not listed on the residential address section of the voter rolls, but was included in the mailing address section. These are just some of the examples in the complaint of people signatures, which were denied. Now, at your May 10 meeting. The board of registrars discussed the open meeting law complaint, which have been filed on May 4 2021 by Amherst attorney Carol Gray, alleging serious open meeting ball violations in connection with the boards meeting on April 21 2021. During that discussion, as you may remember board member Jamie Wagner asked specifically whether there was any other way to review the petition signatures which assistant town clerk Amber Martin had disqualified during the certification process, other than for the board to declare it's April 2021 meeting as null and void in light of the allegations. The town attorney responded that the only avenue available to the petitioners to seek such a review would be for them to challenge in court, the disqualification of the signatures in question. However, the town attorney did not include in that response, the options available to the board, if such a lawsuit were filed. Now that voters whose petition signatures were disqualified have filed this litigation. The board can opt to waste 10s of 1000s of taxpayer dollars and legal fees fighting this case in court, or it can opt to settle the matter with the plaintiffs via consent decree as described. To make this decision in a responsible manner in accordance with your duties as members of the board of registrars to protect the rights of all voters of Amherst, you should carefully read the plaintiff's complaint. And based on the strength of the complaint, the board of registrars could with the assistance of town council propose a consent decree to the plaintiffs to settle this case. I know the town manager has responded already to this letter saying he and only he has the authority to engage in discussions regarding litigation where the town is a party. And as I have responded to him as you've seen via the response that was sent this morning to suggest that that kind of discussion should exclude the board of registrars which is the named defendant in this case is to prevent this board from carrying out this duty to protect the voters of Amherst all the voters. This is not to say that that discussion should occur without the town manager, or without the town attorney, it should proceed with those individuals involved. But the board of registrars has a role here, and you are the ones that have been named in this lawsuit, the integrity of the Amherst board of registrars is on the line in this case. With the initiation of this lawsuit, you now have the opportunity to resolve this matter, and to vindicate the constitutional rights of Amherst voters, whose signatures on this voter veto petition were wrongly disqualified. I urge you to do so. Thank you. Thank you, John. Any, any discussion from the board regarding what attorney bona fide. You should absolutely not be discussing. It's not on the agenda and we were asked not to discuss it. Okay. It's pending litigation. So we were asked not to discuss the, the, I understand not discussing it during public comment, but where is it asked for us not to discuss can't we decide that as a board of registrar to discuss litigation that is our town, our town charter puts everything on the town manager's office and he's already addressed this so if you have questions you need to contact the town manager. I will, but I'm asking fellow board of registrars, we can decide to discuss it. I'm not going to. I'm not discussing it. Well, again, I'd like to, I'll be making a motion later make make make a motion because I'm not going to discuss anything on record. It's public, it's public comment right now. I just want to, you know, make that also make my position clear to certainly appreciate that fellow board of registrar. Thank you Madam chair. I strongly advise against any discussion of this matter. This matter was is not on the board's agenda, and it was not on anticipated that it could be raised today. It was a conscious decision not to put this matter on the agenda and therefore any discussion of this matter in my opinion would constitute a violation of the eating law in addition to the fact that it remains my opinion that the board of registrars does not have the authority to discuss this without the express approval and authority conferred by the town manager. So I just want to make it clear I did ask for it to be on the agenda. So just so we're being transparent. Thank you attorney Carbo. It was not accepted to be on the agenda. So, next on the list for public comment is Sarah McKee. Thank you very much, Commissioner Wagner. Can you hear me. Yes, we can hear you. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I'm a member of the book I've lived in Amherst for 20 years. I'm a member of the bar in the District of Columbia. And one thing that disturbs me very much about the case filed in the Supreme Judicial Court is the precedent set. The town has taken the position. Yes. There might be constitutional rights violated here and we can do nothing about it unless you sue. We're facing a burden on the voters of the town to find an attorney and sue in order to get their constitutional rights from the very town in which they live. It's exceedingly disturbing. And I am very sorry to see it. Thank you. So it looks like the next comment is a phone in town. I'm not sure if that requires the special to get them in or if it's somebody there. They should be permitted to speak. Hello. Yeah, we can we can hear you. Okay, my name is Vincent O'Connor. I'm calling from a friend's phone. And I would like to present to the board of registrars and the other town officials involved. A matter that I think I would have hoped your your counsel would have advised you of, but that the public should be aware of. The penalties that can be visited upon public officials under 42 US code section 1983, which allows public officials to be sued. If they act under color of law to deprive people of their civil rights and constitutional rights. And this is certainly what I'm seeing over the last month. This is not a game. And if it's being treated as a game by anyone, they are really taking chances with them themselves. And I urge you to look that section up. Additionally, when this is a federal law, and when cases are filed against multiple individuals as it would be in this case, the individuals who are charged with investigating these types of activities. A federal bureau known to all of us also has the possibility under 18 US code section 242 of bringing criminal charges against the individuals involved who do consciously deliberately violate people's civil rights. This is not a game, ladies and gentlemen, and it is being treated as a game by some of the parties. As though they can act with impunity against the citizens of the town, spend their money and and be completely personally harmless. This is a very foolish course of action on your part. And I urge you to cease it. Additionally, and finally, the taxpayers of this town, 10 of them at least, have the right to go to court. And if this activity on your part to deny people their civil rights is fine to be blatantly beyond the scope of your duties and maliciously done, then the expenditures that are being made for the town council's office and other activities are going to come out of your pockets and not out of the taxpayers' pockets. So please be aware that this is not some kind of a game where we're using the taxpayers' monies against them because you could end up in personally liable. And I think that this kind of activity needs to cease now. Thank you. Thanks, Ben. Next up on the list for comment is Peggy Matthews-Nielson. Hello. Hi Peggy, we can hear you. Okay, great. Hello, I'm Peggy Matthews-Nielson, an Amherst resident from District 5. Amherst has a resident, I'm sorry, Amherst has a reputation and a public image as a socially conscious progressive college town. One of the last things expected here would be the kind of voter suppression taking place in conservative parts of the country. Indeed, our new town council form of government promised us more democracy and a provision of the new charter provides the voter veto petition as the democratic form of redress available to residents when they disagree with the town council vote on an issue. Yet the first test of the democratic process of Amherst's new town charter failed, but it failed only because petition signatures were wrongly disqualified. In this case, residents signed the voter veto petition to bring the library project to a townwide vote, whether they support the library project or not. There's no concern about what the post COVID-19 budget impact this $37 million project would have on our three other capital projects, particularly the new school project that will be vulnerable from a tax override vote. Residents gathered 1,088 signatures on the petition in only two weeks. The town clerk's office had 10 days to certify signatures. Residents were dismayed to learn that the town clerk's office reviewed 1,088 signatures in a single day. Since great haste disqualified 223 signatures, resulting in the petition being 22 signatures short. It turns out many of these signatures were wrongly disqualified. Many were the lawful signatures of longtime registered Amherst voters and 92 affidavits have since been submitted to the town to attest to this fact. The town clerk's office has acknowledged that mistakes were made. And yet the town of Amherst has so far refused to redress this wrong, instead requiring its residents to go to court for redress. This failure on the town's part to correct its mistakes made in undue haste is tantamount to voter suppression. In contrast, in 2019, our neighbor to the north, Greenfield, Mass, used a voter veto petition to bring their $19 million library project to a town-wide vote. One of Greenfield's at-large counselors is quoted as saying, the bottom line is we want people to vote on this. We want as many people as possible to vote on this. It's the right thing. This is an example of more democracy. So my question to you is, why is less democracy acceptable in Amherst? Why would the town resist bringing this project to a town-wide vote if they are confident that going forward with the project is the will of Amherst voters? And why is voter suppression in any form tolerated in our town? Thank you. Thank you, Peggy. Next up is Adrienne. Are you there, Adrienne? I think she's been, she or he is the next two hands. I don't know if Sean has anything there if we could. Yeah, Adrienne, I've hit the Ask to Unmute button on both actions and neither one. Neither one appeared to be working. All right. Well, why don't we skip the ceremony and then we'll check back with Adrienne so we can get that figured out. There, are you there? I am, but I've spoken already. Your hand was up again, so it must have got. Oh, I'm sorry. So then I guess maybe try again with Adrienne, or I don't know if Adrienne wants to try to put her hand down and raise again. Yeah. The other thing you can try, Adrienne, is hold down the Alt key on your keyboard and press A if you're using a Windows PC. Well, Sean Burke is just put a hand up, so why don't we skip with Sean and then try again. Hello. Yep, we got to Sean, go ahead. Okay, hi, Sean Burke, I'm Amherst resident for the last 37 years at this particular address. I'm with my wife Rita, and I went around with that form to get signatures from our neighbors so Rita's name was the first one on the list on the form mine was the second, and then I went around and got the rest of our neighbors and a couple of our friends picked off the list, and mine wasn't at the same address the same, the same last name, same everything, except the first names obviously. And so I just don't understand how something like that can happen, and, and the review like I question the review of all of these to begin with because, as the as the attorney earlier spoke and said how, because of the. People wrote the lane out instead of LN and so forth and so on and I don't understand. I mean who gives people the, the authority to make a decision like that when it's, it's obvious that it was there was meant to be said. And also I just don't, I agree with, I think was a few weeks back when, when this board had a meeting after everything happened and the board wanted to put a question forward to a limit or to I want to say, redo whatever was done back then and to the vote to the board members said they wanted to erase it one board member said that she didn't, and the town clerk was a was allowed to vote now I don't I suppose that her gig allows her to vote sometimes but when it would when it would be the voting rights in the town and that particular person I don't think lives in this town and is not a town resident so how I just I, and so her vote made it a tie so everything stayed as it was, and it staying as it was brings us to this point, and a bunch of lawyers and a bunch of money to question somebody's right to vote and question the fact that the, the reasoning that that was brought forth was very questionable and, and I just don't understand how this can get carried on and carried on and carried on without the town, who really to just come out and say, my bad, we were wrong. Let's, let's be correct here and not put everybody through all of this. So, that's my statement thank you very much. Thank you, John. Um, Now, do I try Adrian again. No, no, no. Nope, there we go. Adrian, are you there. I am here and with with great apologies to you all on of an erratic computer right now. I would like to say my name is Adrian Turizzi. Although I'm a long time member and for the League of Women voters I'm speaking strictly for myself today. Just briefly, I am a 50 plus year resident citizen of the town of Amherst, a town that I've contributed to both with my volunteer community and my heart in this town for its well being its health safety and welfare. And I would like to say, without replicating everyone else who's spoken that we are in an impasse as a town. I don't know if the legalities or the illegalities or the mistakes that were made, but I can tell you that something is is wrong and has to be corrected without going into without going into all of the issues at hand. I want to find a way and come together. The town manager, the board of registrars, the lawyer for the town, as well as a lawyer for the plaintiffs. I also want to add that I was not involved in any way with this voter veto petition. But as a citizen, and as a long time member of the League of Women voters, it seems to me, the right thing to do is to acknowledge the right of the citizens to have redress. And I want to thank everyone. I appreciate the public common period, and you are long running meetings. Thank you for hearing me. Thank you, Adrian. Well, if you can just pop back up someone's going to assume that that is just a computer phone crazy. Anybody else? Sorry, sorry, I have DJ G gone if you want all of them. And thank you very much. Carol Gray here at a 15 Southeast Street. I want to thank all the speakers who have been presenting so far. I assume that people can hear me correct. Yes. I can hear you, Carol. Thank you so much. I think a lot of the speakers made such eloquent comments I would encourage anyone who's written their comments to email them to the town clerk to ask that they be incorporated with minutes. I think that these meetings are very important and your jobs as registrars is critically important and I really appreciate that you are spending the time to let citizens speak and residents and to take the time that is required to listen to these comments. I'm going to speak to the open meeting law complaint that I filed on May 14. I'll start off thanking the board for their diligence in meeting promptly to approve minutes. I haven't seen the minutes yet if there are any draft minutes for May 24, but hopefully they will be available at some point. And I would request that any documents that the board is looking at for this meeting or any future meetings, especially since we're not in person and there can't be like documents on the back table to pick up. If the board could please make those available with the agendas in the same place where they posted the draft minutes before that would be appreciated. In terms of the open meeting law complaint. So there were three parts to that complaint. The first two dealt with minutes. And as you know, there were three minutes that were three board minutes that we were looking at which was April 21. May 7 and May 10. I found online and actually I emailed it to the board. Hopefully you saw my email. A copy of slides that I found online from KP law that talked about approval of minutes. And one of the slides says, and I'm reading from the slide open session minutes must be created and approved in a timely manner. Approval must occur generally within the next three meetings, or within 30 days, whichever is later. Minutes are public records as of the moment of their creation, regardless of whether they have been approved. The second slide said, open session minutes must be created and approved. And it says new regulations provide the approval must occur, generally within the next three meetings or within 30 days, whichever is later. So I raise this because, as you know, the April 21 minutes were not approved within 30 days. I wanted to say that I very much appreciated what attorney Corbos said in the May 24 meeting. At minute 47. He said with respect to the three matters that have been raised as to the first two matters regarding the timely creation and approval of minutes. I agree that you do did not meet the timeliness requirement for the approval of the April 21 meeting, because they were not approved within three meetings, or 30 days. So, there is a violation of the open meeting law. I appreciate that you're doing everything in your power to rectify that the remedies sought for the meeting law violation were to create minutes and post them promptly to have a training on the open meeting law. And to caution all parties, including Attorney Goldberg who talked at length about the open meeting law violation during the May 7 meeting when it was not on the agenda to caution everyone to please follow the open meeting law. Attorney Goldberg mentioned in that meeting that she thought that the open meeting law complaint of May 4 was a red herring. But I think the open meeting law is a very important rule and it's the law. I noticed looking online, and this was part of the open meeting law complaint. There is an archive for all minutes of all boards and committees and the Board of Registrar's archive for the minutes link has nothing it has a sample of what minutes might look like. I would ask that all minutes be posted there. I learned from the town clerk that since 2006, there have been nine sets of minutes from the Board of Registrar's none of which we learned in the last meeting we're from this current board. But all of those nine minutes sets of minutes, I think should be posted in the archive I have requested them and haven't received them yet. So, I hope that the board will agree with what Attorney Corbeau said in the last meeting that there is indeed a violation of the open meeting law, and that they will think it beneficial to have a training on the open meeting law. I do think it's important that the training be done by an independent party not KP law. And I would think that the Secretary of State or Attorney General might have ideas about such trainings. And that is the conclusion of my remarks and thank you for your time. Thank you Carol. I don't want to back up again but I don't want to assume that there was not another comment but I don't know. Sean or we just will move on from there. Adrian should be unmuted right now. I don't want to say or your hand just up again. No, maybe nothing. All right, and Sean Burke is back up again also so I'm not sure if there was another additional comment or that is that. What do I mean to unmute Sean. Sure, we'll just check in with him just to make sure. Hi, actually it's Rita but I don't know how to show my name because he's the one who signed on. Would I be able to make a comment. That's fine go ahead Rita. Okay, so I'm Rita Burke, and I live at 50 Henry Street with Sean. And I wanted to say I can't possibly be as eloquent as so many other people have been but this isn't personal, and yet somehow it feels like it I'm sure it feels like it to you as well and it certainly feels like it to a lot of us. And as much as attorney Corbo wants to make it it's not about the library either. And I feel shame on him for trying to infer otherwise. It's unfortunately and unintentionally become about voter rights. Yes. And what started as a look into how and why people's signatures were rejected because people like myself were baffled that I would not know how to write my name and my address after living at this particular one for 37 years. I keep going back to things like clerk Audet I don't know her personally I have nothing against her but she stated a number of times throughout these meetings and I've watched them all that Amber Martin again someone I don't know was trained in experience for the task that she was charged with yet both Miss Martin and the clerk have also stated that Miss Martin was not aware of the clerk having already the authority to verify signatures. Meanwhile, both also stated that the meeting to grant Miss Martin that authority was for transparency. Like icing on the cake and redundant that seems contradictory to me either Miss Martin knew and didn't need the meeting, or she didn't know and thought she needed the meeting. There's just so much here that has been discussed in all of these meetings and clearly much of it has been a challenge, not only for the public, but for the board members themselves to sort out. Doesn't that in itself indicate that not the proper procedures in process or understood or in place. I mean the system's flawed. It wasn't intended to be I'm sure and it's a very big surprise to a lot of people that it is I'm also sure, but anyone looking at the examples of the signatures that were rejected would have to understand that this was not, as the clerk stated, a case of two people can look at the same signature and see it differently. That's not what happened with my case I'm sure Rita Caber 50 Henry straight. Just how confident should the voters be when an example is given by the clerk which, for example, the absence of a junior or senior designation on a name as a reason for disqualification. And it is actually not a reason for disqualification, it's specified as not a reason for disqualification. We're not going to get through all of these issues and fix them all, but we can fix the entire situation. That just means like you teach your children own up to a mistake, fix it and try not to repeat it. I do urge the board to settle this I think the descent decree sounds like a wonderful way to do it. Otherwise, this is going to go on and on. And we already have seen the camps start to split even more dramatically in our town, and it's doing everyone a grave to service. Stop digging your heels and do what's right. That's my opinion. Thank you for listening. So we're back to Adrian, so I think with no other hand being raised, we can close the public comment section of our meeting. Adrian, are you there again? Jamie, please, with great apologies, please ignore the raised and lowered hand. I've already said what I wanted to thank you for your patience. Thank you. Okay, so I think then we're good with the public comment section of our meeting. So I think the second topic on our meeting was review. Yeah, excuse me, Jamie, I would like to move that the Board of Registrar's schedule and executive session to discuss the lawsuit. Under which section D, there's many sections that you utilize under the executive session, which section legal. In other words, Section E, Part D, there's there's a you have to choose which section under the executive session list. I don't know there's a whole list under legal. Is there somewhere that that can be pulled up to see the different section. That would be a great idea Jamie. Jamie Carbo, would you have happened to have that by any chance available in your records that's easy to get out. So you don't have it. I have a hard copy. I have a hard copy. I don't have electronic version. I see. Yes. I'm through you Madam chair. I can pull it up, but I don't know how to share my screen Sean is that something that can I tell you how to find it and you should. Yeah, you should have the ability to share your screen but yeah if it's easier just to tell me if it's something quick. I'm happy to pull it up and display it. Okay, can you get on to. All right, well, let me try to do it first. All right. Okay. I can certainly Google it myself but yeah I think we all need to see those sections and I'm entitled to see those so what you're referring to Sue. Yeah, under MGL chapter 30 a section 21 a think this is. Am I sharing this now. Yes. Okay, through you Madam chair this section chapter. This is chapter 30 a section 21 of the Massachusetts general laws sets forth the reasons that a board can enter executive session. If a board is going to enter executive session, its meeting notice must identify one of these specific reasons. And then when the meeting comes its vote must also reference one of these specific reasons. I don't think I can make the whole thing fit on a page so I'll leave it here. And let me know when you're ready to move on. Oh, I believe I can restate my mode. Do you want to find what section you want to use. Yeah, so I'll, and I'll restate my motion with the section. Yeah. So, I move that the board, the, the board of registrar schedule, an executive session to discuss the lawsuit based on section three, which is discuss strategy with respect to collective bargaining or litigation, if an open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the bargaining or litigating position of the public body and the chair so declare so I think that specifically speaks to what we're dealing with. I would second the motion. So I think we need to vote on that. So, let's do a roll call. I guess to our debt. Vote. Thanks. All right, Jacqueline Gardner, you vote. Yes or no. No, until we talk to the town attorney town manager. Would that would this meeting be that you're recording would this include that kind of include the town manager within what you're trying to do in this. Oh, I think that's up to our discretion but we need to. So my motion simply is about scheduling an executive session to discuss the impending litigation. So I think it's up to our discretion as the board of registrars to invite whomever, including the town manager, they certainly can attend. All right. So, Jackie voted no, the survive the vote. I am in favor. And Amy Wagner vote yes, vote to schedule a meeting to discuss this. All right, so that's two yeses and one no, so I guess we should talk about scheduling a meeting. I guess I, I thought it'd be nice to off but I think I would like to have like the town manager present and I think an attorney spot if as email. Kind of had, I think, suggested that that also whoever needs to be involved, be involved. So I don't know if you guys want to think about a meeting time now or if we're able to because it's not a public thing can we do that over email and find dates that work for everybody or do we have to do that right now. We're not going to be scheduling it over email, but by next week would be preferable. All right, so we will, after this meeting, I guess work to find a time that works for us to me and go from there. Okay, so next on the agenda is the review of the minute. I think you could just break them down and, in my opinion do them on at a time so we start with April 21st everybody wants a few minutes to review the changes and then we can talk about it. Can I share my screen. Please. Who can share. Screen, get bigger. Hello, chair, Jamie. I don't know if this is the time to bring up what was brought up by attorney Carol Gray, but I also had a question for attorney Harbaugh, because that meeting he did say that there was an open meeting law violation, and because of the, we didn't fall the meeting minutes, so the meeting, the meeting minutes for April 21st were not created when the within the required 30 days, and he answered that in an affirmative so I think that needs to be discussed at some point. But do you have anything to speak to that or you think that's fine to do before or after. Through you Madam chair, we do have a, an item on the agenda to specifically talk about the response to the open meeting law complaint. I did provide each of the board members with a proposed draft response. I'll leave it to you as to whether you want me to address that specific issue now or wait till later. Okay, I think we can wait till later. So once everybody's done reviewing these minutes and the changes if anybody has any comment just let me know. But these are the clerks changes. I'll put up these changes as well. Let me see if I can. See if I can do that. Yeah, it looks like you incorporated my changes. So we had the same thing we went back and listen to. Yeah. Well, no that's just mainly that there was a difference this should be to to where you have number two voted to zero one. That should be two to zero, because Amber from my looking at the video I wasn't there but I looked at the video, Amber didn't vote. Correct me agreed. 012 is yeses zero as knows and one is absent. Oh, okay, so just to make sure it reflects that. Martin did not vote states it in the wording. Yep. So I've got them both up. Can you see them both. No, we cannot see them both. I've only got one on my hand. Okay, I'll have to pull one up at a time then because I just opened word twice and I've got them side by side on my monitor but that didn't work. Well, everyone received these changes I think I might be the easier way to go if you've looking at your heart, your heart copy of these changes compared to these here. Does that work. That works for me. I just, I just want to state that what's important and that as someone who's part of the board of register who was not in attendance at the meeting, but looked at the video that, you know, there's a big difference with, you know, Amber Martin not voting. She's, if she's representing and in your place, Sue as the clerk. So was she or, you know, there's again seems to be some contradiction or some confusion as to Amber's role. You know, she didn't abstain so I'm just confused if she if she is in your place, then basically wouldn't she have voted as you vote with us. I think, Amber, would you like to speak to that. She's still here she might be at the counter. She's still here. So I think what we're discussing now is the meeting minutes of that actual meeting. So I think what's in front of us is pretty accurate as far as the meeting goes, whether I abstained or it's a no vote I think that's up to the board to decide so if you guys want to vote on that. Feel free. There shouldn't be no ambiguity about it so could you state what you did do. I did not vote. I did not vote. Okay, so then, so I just want to make sure you shouldn't be listening to staining but she did not vote. Okay. And you did not abstain. So we need to just put that in the record. Know what it says. Yes, Amber Martin did not vote. And she did not abstain. Sure, we can add that in. Thank you. Yeah, that do we have a consensus on that. Okay. It's okay with me too. I'm going to make the changes live here. Okay. Okay. Appreciate it. So I will say Amber Martin did not vote or abstain. Okay. Or. Nor abstain. Yes. Yeah. Okay. I was just curious about one thing, but could something be put in there as far as there was no discussion and we get about the. Petitions. Or we can just let that go. I mean the purpose of the meeting. Yeah, okay. That's sufficient. Okay. This is to reflect what the purpose of the meeting was and what was said at that meeting. Okay. So if we can do under number two under voted, then it should read accurately. Two to zero. So it does not reflect one as an abstention. That's right. You weren't there. You weren't even there. Okay. I'm thinking of it as, as absent, not abstention. Absent. Yeah. Yep. Yep. Oh, can I make a motion to approve the April 21st minutes as presented. Actually, it's actually a sorry to interrupt. It's actually as amended. As amended. Yeah. I make a motion to approve the minutes from April 21st as amended. I second. All right. Okay. I'm going to vote. So Jacqueline Gardner, how do you vote? Oh, in favor of that one. To audit. I. Be Shabbos. Yes. And Amy Wagner votes. Yes. So we will. Approve the minutes from the April 21st meeting as amended and they will be. Yeah. Okay. Those, those are done. We will discuss, I guess, the further. Overmean our violation in regard to these minutes later. So I will set those aside for now. And if you want to review. The May 7th minutes. Quickly before all students getting them up on the screen. And then we will discuss those. You see them. Yes. And this is the one you have up to you have the care. Okay. Okay. So. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Yeah. After listening to the video. Okay. So. On number two. Yeah. Well, I guess that's the same thing, but it does seem rather descriptive. Sue. Nominate it herself as chair. Okay. Okay. So. There should be. And there's a lot of description. Yeah. I objected to sue. As chair. For the reasons that she's the ex-officio member of the board. I would appreciate that. My objection. Being stated correctly. And I don't see it reflected there. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay, so right after here. Yeah. So after it's an under two. And then motion, there was discussion. And. I sent in my notes. I objected to Sue Audette being chair. Since she was the ex-officio member of the board. I think that was the reason for that. I think that was the reason for that. I think that was the reason for that. And saying that the election was just for that day. And that at Monday's meeting, the group would need to take up the issue. So I believe the discussion that you have on. Yeah. So. Right. Right after the motion. So here. So do you. Jamie and Jackie agree with that comment. Should we add that in? Okay. With that being added in. So should I read it again? No, I have an autonomy. I could just copy and paste it. Hold on. I don't know if anybody has any insight to it, but I know on another board that I'm a member of fund. I do the minutes for them. I've always been told that minutes are basically, I mean, obviously you get in here. You're voting, you know, your second emotions and your voting and stuff. And then it's basically. I mean, I think that the. Ministers are just put on points. And I mean, some of our minutes, these minutes for the board of registrar is get pretty lengthy with kind of like. The back story. And I know that there's. You know, necessary times that to happen, but sometimes I wonder, is it a rule for what the minutes are supposed to look like. Requirements that they need to meet minimum maximum. For, you know, I plan again, just looking at some of the further down these minutes where we have, you know, everybody that spoke in the public comment, there's a lot of. They're. Store, you know, what they were talking about in there. And I know that for certain situations, that's important to capture that stuff, but is there a minimum that we're set that we need to. Address within the minute. That is actually in the open meeting law guide. And I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. What's to be covered. It doesn't need to be a transcript, but I don't have the open leading guard guide in front of me. Hold on. And it isn't a transcript. I think if we looked at the transcript for the video, it's almost 80 to 90 pages long. So it's actually capturing. The main points. I think the problem becomes. When you have issues as important as this. And that's what we can do. That's important. People want their, their objections captured. And so when I corrected the minutes, that is, that is was my intent. You know, whether it's objections or in the affirmative, people want their, their ideas captured, particularly having to do with this issue. to be enough that a reasonable person who was not at the meeting can look at the minutes and have an understanding of what went on. As Ms. Odette stated, it doesn't need to be a verbatim transcript, but anything short of that is really within the discretion of the board as to what level of detail you think is needed in a particular circumstance. So in other circumstances, it might be enough to have bullet points summarizing the general discussion. And in other cases, more detail might be necessary. So it really is something that the board has discretion over as to whether or not to include a lot of detail. And as was pointed out here, this is a matter of significant public interest. So it's probably worthwhile to have more detail rather than less. That sounds good as long as we're meeting what we need to do for them. Thank you for the clarification. So after the motion, I have included Dee's comment that she had submitted. So that's in there now. Can I scroll down? Are we past this section? Oh, I'll stop right here. And a lot of what we did too was this house cleaning, keeping things consistent with titles in order of names and things like that. Okay, so are we in the public comment section? Yes. Okay. So yeah, my corrections attempted to sum up what people were commenting on. We added a lot of that too. So without, you know, doing word for word, say public comment, here we go, okay. So I would submit for Jeffrey Lee that again, in summation, my revision includes the 5% of Amherst registered voters, the citizen's right to wonder why there's so many signatures were rejected. I mean, that's at the heart of the complaint. And that, you know, I wrote tedious task of certification was assigned to an inexperienced assistant clerk. I think, you know, we can decide whether to put that in, but that is part of the complaint. It has come up before. And that again, Jeffrey Lee said that they felt compelled to complete it in less than 24 hours when the town charter allows for 10 days and urges the board to review the rejected signatures, including the more than 85 for which signer affidavits have been submitted and do what is best for Amherst, which has come up before. So that really truncates Jeffrey Lee's statement. And I'm fine with adding that and if we're gonna deal with other ones also. Can you see these comments right now? No, we can't see that one. Geez, I don't know how that. Did I cover the ones that you can see up or no? You can still see what you've been seeing. I'm still learning how to use this with the screen share. All right, so that's not, those are not my edits. Okay, so that's, okay, all right. But that works out for me. Okay, good, because I can cut and paste easier. But on that one too, I would like to have that word inexperienced assistant clerk or the inexperienced part just cut out. I think it's unnecessary to name calling in minutes. I agree with Daphne on that. And especially who's he to judge, you know? Well, it was his statement, not ours. I understand, but again, I don't think it should be in there, period. I just added it to the other one. Can everyone see that? It does come up. Yep. Okay. Okay, so for JASNA Reggie, again, it doesn't reflect what the heart of what they were saying. So said the petition drive was conducted so painstakingly during the pandemic and so many valid signatures were rejected. Signers were shocked because they were longtime residents and registered voters and that they went to the additional trouble to fill out affidavits and go and get them notarized. Very disturbed that one in five had their names thrown out. I mean, what it speaks to as a record is some of the themes that if we were to look at this, you know, and some type of social and behavioral analysis that there are themes that recur. And looking at these themes that recur that they might have a point. So I do think it's important to document as much as we can, particularly in this initial meeting on April 21st. I mean, I'm sorry, on May, when they were able, the public to speak on May 7th, yeah, May 7th. I'd like to make a comment, just the one in five thrown out. Just for you ladies to know, when certifying, there's always a percentage of signatures that do not certify and pretty average number is anywhere between 15 and 25%, believe it or not. Yeah, I just want to throw that out there. Okay, thanks for the comment next, yeah. Yeah, I know, I think it was out in the public. Someone mentioned the charter signatures. I think it was like 22% that did not certify when we had charter questions. So just letting you know that. Okay. Okay, good. Then again, too, you know, there is like, the way I see it with stuff in black is pretty much like summarized it. I mean, it's like extra, well, anyway, just leave it there. So is there a way to cut and paste there? Yeah, if everyone's in agreement, I will, I'm waiting for an agreement. I'm fine with, I mean, I think if we've done it for one person or it's kind of like expanded on what their context of their feet, you know, go through and just do it with everybody that we have on there, so we don't have any issues with why we just released statement more important than Jocelyn's statement. And for one, I mean, I agree that I feel like the summary is just more to the point and it kind of captures it all, but. But people have the option also reviewing, sorry, that they have the option to review the video too online if they wanted more details on it. Cause this was a three hour meeting. Right, Jacqueline, but these are official. I understand that, and I said that. So we show the full transcript is much longer. These are summations that and revisions that I'm making to their comments. So Jamie, can you let me know if we talk about each person, you know, after you've read their comments, if we're in agreement, I'll paste them into there. Cause I know we took out the word inexperienced under Jeffrey Lee, but instead of just copying all of her, all of these suggestions that, you know. Yeah. Okay. Now if we have a dozen updates, we go to Maria. Oh, I think the word board has to be capitalized. I'm just gonna put capital B in there. So I think again, going along with the other amendments that you should take these suggestions. I don't see anything in there. Well, voting rolls should be R-O-L-L-S, just FYI. Jackie, you agree with that one too? Should I? Yeah, just go ahead on with it. Okay. But are these direct quotes in red? Pretty much, it is a summary. Because again, this is like sickle on hand and half a dozen on other. Do you want the short summary or do you want the longer summary? Well, some of the summaries aren't really accurate and reflecting to me. They're main points. But who are we to judge that? We're just putting down the facts. No, not all of it is, again, factual. So that's why I dig the time. That's what I'm saying. To summarize it, yeah. Because nothing is ever gonna be, shall we say, that factual. Okay, I disagree that we can get as close as we can to their main points and intent. I think the main points have been captured is the point I'm making. Yeah, I don't think so. And that's why the revision is right there. Opinion, personal opinion. You're welcome to listen to it. I know what I can and cannot do, but thank you very much for your permission. Same, Jacqueline. So are we moving on to Rita Burke? Denise Barberette. I mean, there was no changes made on this, but they definitely don't, they're not the same. I mean, I'm happy with weaving. It's the way that it is presented in front of us, on the screen, it's just sharing. They're the same, but different, but they're still different in how things are stated. So I think I'm fine with leaving that as Jacqueline is in moving on to Rita Burke, but it's definitely different from what I have hard copy versus what's on the screen. So for Rita Burke, we can look at the canes there. Yeah, I mean, mainly that she learned of that her signature wasn't certified because she was one of several petitioners that had requested information. So I think that's important to amend. So would you add that in for Rita Burke? Currently, her signature was not certified as a member of the petitioner. What parts? Right, so I scratched that out and how I amended it is that her signature was not certified, period. She learned of this only because she was one of several petitioners who requested information, period, taking out as a member of the petitioner. Okay, so where are we going to put this in? Right after that? So the line should be, so after Ben and Amher since 1970 was a tenure member of town meeting, her signature was not certified, period, and then add the sentence. She learned of this only because she was one of several petitioners who requested information, period. And then let's see, where are we? Yeah, that's it. So, Carol Gray, I think it's particularly important. Yeah, do we need to take a look at what's in this comment part of it? Is it a matter because you've got a comment down below or is it really just, I mean, it's just an extra line but if we're going through and changing things up, does it have to? But I think if I remember correctly, he just participated, he was going to say something and he didn't. And then I think later on in the meeting, he said something. Yeah, exactly, he's further down. So I don't know if that needs to actually be there? Not really, at least in my opinion it doesn't. Do you want to take it out? Yeah, I would just. It's gone. Okay. All right, now we're down to Carol Gray, CJB. Because this is the person that has filed open meeting law complaint, I think it's important to try to capture as much wordy or not of what, you know, to try to summarize what they were saying. My edit on that, and of course it's up to you all, one, two, three, four, within the four sentences into Carol Gray's comments under voter suppression, not saying it was intended that way. I struck out it wasn't intentional, but that was the effect. And then let's see, six lines in, spoke to the Secretary of State's office and asked if missing an apartment was grounds for disqualification, period. And then she continued, they said no, usually that's not the case if the signature matches what's on the voter registration forms and the address is clear. It doesn't matter that they're missing the apartment number and yet more than 24 were rejected for missing apartment numbers. So those are the main edits. There were some smaller ones, but those were the main edits to Carol Gray's comments. So when she made the comments, there's been a lot of comments since that and I sure didn't go back like so, but did she say she believed it wasn't intentional or did she say it wasn't intended that way? So I think if we're trying to take people's words, what did she say? Yeah, she said it was not intended that way. That's why it's different. So it was written as it wasn't intentional. Okay, but if she had said it wasn't intended that way, then I would say that to be the original. I think they mean the same thing purpose personally, but either way with me it's fine because I mean the same thing. It doesn't matter to me, just writing style. Exactly. And I went back and listened to all the videos and that's what I came up with, that's what I heard. Okay, it was either way, it's fine. Either way, it's fine. All right, so I say then just leave that too. Okay. You haven't then do want to add in these other suggestions. Yeah, I'm trying to figure out where that's going. Let's see. Does that look correct? There we go. Does that look right, Lottie? Yeah, it's fine. I think it looks good. So on to Daniel Denton-Hompson. So I do feel his comments were important. He's making, of course, a statement about why this issue should rise to the level of importance concerning voting rights. So Reed's lived in Amherst all his life, signed it with his original signature, his signature was rejected. And it shouldn't read due to the fact that he didn't live at the address. Oh, it doesn't say that, Dee. Look at what's on the screen. Where? Okay, that was taken out, okay. Yeah, in the hard copy, that's where it is. Okay, so here, whether we want to include my revisions as I wrote them, but I surmised he founded weird or strange that he didn't live at this address where he's lived for almost 14 years with his mother, who of course was a SNCC and voting rights activist. He says mom was surprised too because she signed the same petition and her signature wasn't rejected. And that she was a freedom writer. She fought for voting rights. So again, those are my revisions because that was the main part of why he spoke up, I believe. All right, I thought just if you want to add that, Dee, I think, I mean, too, I'm sorry, that it's just going along with how we've been doing it. Let's see, it's a little redundant. So figure out how to merge them, let's see. So let's see. I see what you mean through the being kind of redundant. So we could try to, once it's up there, maybe read it as amended there and then further revises it. So it's kind of not as just saying it's one thing. Alrighty, yeah, so. So yeah, I think just saying that he's lived at his address for 14 years with his mom and that his mom was surprised because she signed the same petition and her signature wasn't rejected and she was a freedom writer and she fought for voting rights. So I don't think you need to put found a very weird saying that, you know. Yeah, we don't need to put that. Yeah, but that he's lived at the same address with his mom for 14 years. Okay, I'm going to put that on second. So not all is live. How's that, how's that read? No way, so 14 years and that she and that she also signed the petition. Is that there? Oh, I see the next line. Okay. And that her signature wasn't rejected. She's a freedom. Yeah, that's fine. Okay. All right. So now on to Thomas and Marla, I guess the name. And Marla, I guess the name. Yeah, Jim, mate. Yeah, so the only, you know, whether we want to agree to that, it doesn't necessarily have to be, but that they stated the voices of the elders in the community who wanted to sign this petition and express an opinion that it negates by again, you know, disqualifying these signatures that it negates their signatures and their participation. What's the difference between that and as far as them and the mom signing the petition? So if you're going to do it for one, you do it for the other one. Sure. Right. If you're going to do it that way, you don't have stuff. Sure. Then cherry pick. With you on that, let's put it all. Is that one all set? We're good with that. As it's going to bear, we'll move it again. Okay, Adrienne. So, you know, again, I think it's important that Adrienne Terese is saying that, which she echoed today, she wasn't involved in the voter petition. I think having that stated, you know, on record is important. And then for her, it's about voters' rights, the rights of the citizen to petition their government. The board is a local independent body. And then she's commenting, the board this morning should engage and review the process, as well as examine the original petition signatures signed after David's this morning, or a work of democracy at its best. So I don't know if she said, believes the signatures on the petition should be compared to those, and I'd have to look again at that. But I think that sums up what she said within that comment. Okay, with how, with the changes that were made for Adrienne, but I'm not sure how are we able to... So this change here, I'm seeing, the board is a local independent body, but that's not what we heard. We heard that legal women voters, which is a local independent body. So that's two separate, that's two different statements. That she said today, or then... No, this meeting that we're talking about here. Oh, and May 7th. Oh, okay, I've heard that wrong, yeah. Yeah. So that's the only discrepancy that I see here. Again, she believes the signatures should be compared to those on the after David's. I mean, we put down what we heard. So what you're adding, I've added not involved. Okay. Oops, where's my mouse? Where's my mouse go? There it was. I'm kind of putting yours in between the other ones. For her, it's all about voters, right? How does that look? Yeah, I think, you know, and saying, you don't even need that last line. She believes that the signatures on the petition should be compared to those on after David's. She's kind of saying that. Yeah, you're right. Okay, so if that looks good, we could go down to... Soba had, I don't think, did you make any changes for Soba? No, just Litzgau? Yeah, it's going down to David Litzgau. So I think the main points, and again, it's up to you all, was that he changed his mind back and forth so many times actually about that maybe need some clarification about to support it, to support the revisiting the signatures or not. But I forgot how, we'd have to probably listen again to find out how he actually said that. But I do remember he talked about that. Let's see. He supports the town council democracy. And then my revision was that was going to urge the board of registrars just follow the law, not revisit the certification process on the assumption that the certification process was conducted properly. So listen to all of the people who zoomed in to speak to their affidavits and to testify the fact that they voted for the petition and that they signed the petition and believes that they are the right to that opinion and that should be honored. Found their testimony quite persuasive. It's changed his mind and urged the board to revisit it. I mean, mainly that he was going to speak on behalf of not supporting revisiting the signatures, but then he changed his mind and he urged the board to revisit it. So let's see. I guess that kind of speaks to that. So we don't have to necessarily change it. It's up to you all. Well, I think it's our last one and we've added everything else to everybody else that. I'm fine with it going in there, but again, that's just mine. You're good. So here's where I added a lot. Ladies probably haven't had a chance to read this yet. So under the discussion, point number four, from the very first time you saw the minutes. So I just, I want to add there real quick about my comments raised the question, whether Attorney Goldberg had a conflict of interest due to representation of the town manager and the town council, just for good measure, of course, and is why KP law is at our meetings, had a conflict in advising the board of registrars as an independent body is what I said and was the case I was making and that attorney Goldberg was representing the town clerk, not the board of registrars. So add as an independent body after the first sentence. Would that do it? Yes, attorney Goldberg had a conflict in advising the board of registrars as an independent body and that Goldberg was representing the town clerk, not the board of registrars. I don't know how would some of that stuff, though, if she, I mean, is acting for us and not I feel like it's the town clerk if we think it's acting. I know, but it's what I said and it's. So you wanted to read, so you've raised the question of whether Goldberg has a conflict of interest in representing the board of registrars. So we should have that there. Right, as an independent body. But the thing it is, is like as far as like if you're sticking true to what was said and not what you're thinking now. Nope, I believe that. That's what I just want to make sure because again, you know, people have a revisionist view of what they say sometimes. Oh, this is not a revisionist view. Yes, very familiar with revisionism. Okay, take a look at that. See if that's correct now. Okay, so again, due to her representation, you're, you're welcome to keep town manager and town council, but also town clerk within there. Okay, let's add that. Okay, maybe we'll be able to help you into funding that. So the only thing I would add to attorney Goldberg's comments in summation is, and just because it was such a memorable line, attorney Goldberg said the open meeting law issue is a red herring. I don't think that we should put that in there. Did she say that during the public meeting? He said that. But again, to me it's like insulting comments, just leave them out. That's not insulting, that was her line. It wasn't my line. It was her line. And this is my opinion. I don't think, I don't think. It was meant to distract from whatever, because the red herring was. I know, I know what it means, thank you very much. Oh no, I was posing a revision, Jackie. Okay, all right. Okay, only other thing was that I did and I don't see, let's see, was that reflected in there? I then asked for, if the board would be able to have independent legal counsel, independent legal guidance in this matter about the open meeting law. And yeah, I'm still, you know, that hasn't been answered. Sue, you actually replied that you'd look into that. And I didn't, correct. And the very reply that I did not. And I'll tell you, yeah. We still don't have an answer on that. That's something you're more than welcome to pose to the town manager, who is your appointing authority? You have every right to ask him on your own. You don't need me to do that, so. Absolutely. Yeah, so. I just want it reflected. Yeah, I'm just looking to see. So that's right before we get to the motion that I made. Yep, okay, I'm just looking. That'll be the next. Oops, why does it do that? Maybe this one. I think it's in the May 10th minutes that that's reflected that I did not check into that. Cause it was asked again. I know I typed it in there somewhere. I think that's where it is. Yeah. So just, yeah, you had just replied that you'd look into it. Okay. That's fine. So then after the motion. Yeah, this shouldn't go there. Let's see. Right there's several. So number five should be taken out there. I think it's one of the agenda items, but it can go. Oh, okay. I see what you did. So motion. Demetri Shabazz moved to adjourn the meeting, postpone all discussions. And then I made another motion move that the board proceed on Monday with the discussion of the open meeting law. Yep. Actually what should go under the, any other topics that may come before the board is just none. That way we cover that. Oh, in the, you know. Okay. Yeah. Okay. So then under that, we didn't adjourn and I moved that the board proceed on Monday with the discussion of the open meeting law. Sue agreed that the motion on the table was for everybody postpone this meeting today to a later date and time to be specified or specific. So that's before Sue Audette moved and seconded by Jamie Wagner. So I'd made another motion. Let's put this right here. I hate word. All right. Let's go here. It doesn't, don't want it. Okay. There we go. All right. Let's see. Oh, we're a perfect girl. I hear you. It was sad when we converted over. Oh, you too? Yeah. Okay. Look at Selma. Let me just move the margin. All right. Force it to work. Okay. Okay. And then yeah, Sue Audette. Okay. Seconded. So under that motion, Sue Audette moved seconded by Jamie Wagner to adjourn today's meeting until May 13th, 2021 at 10 a.m. Oh, well, that was mine just to be more specific. So along with the other motions, there wasn't really two motions, right? It could just be the same motion. So the Sue Audette moved seconded by Jamie Wagner to go under the D Chabaz moves the board proceed on Monday. Because it doesn't really have, I guess I'm up close to the meeting and we're all together the same thing, or? I think I did make that motion though. Okay. So I know there are motions flying right left and sideways. We're trying to get our feet figuring out who does what? I mean, the bottom line is we voted. So one for these motions, each of us move with the board on Monday. So should that have something specific to say whether it was seconded or vote, like how it was voted on, typically. Right. If you have the motion, it has to have it resolved at the end. Right. And that works. Motion failed. Right. I think that makes sense. Motion failed, motion failed, motion failed. Okay. Clarification, new motion, a vote, adjourn. There we go. So the last part there, the only the vote that took place unanimously in favor of the motion adjourned at 12 p.m., May 7th. Yeah, I don't know. Let's see. Oh, okay, I see. Yep. Yep, yep. Yeah, it was confusing before. Yeah. No, because they were, yeah. All right. So I move to accept the minutes and approve them as amended. I second. All right. So Jacqueline Garza. Yeah, I'm in favor of it. We can accept them. Who are that? In favor. Dishwas. Yes, in favor. And Jamie Wagner. Yes. So these minutes are now approved and we placed on file with the Comfort Office. So we're gonna take time to review the May 10th minutes, 12 p.m., finishing up with these and save them and get some. Yeah. Let's see. All right. Does everybody see the May 10th? Mm-hmm. Okay. Oh, that's where it says it, D. Uh-huh. I see it. Yep. Better at editing as we went forward. This one here is reflecting the original ones that were posted online that you guys got and I'm lining through and underlining what was priorly there and what is being added. Okay. Sue, I think if there's no, nothing in section one that we really are gonna discuss, can you slow up a little bit more just a week? I can see some of like the, yeah, probably if that everybody's okay with that, just like in kind of feel further down. And Sue, did you send these to us? I didn't. I didn't. So I sent them like a little while ago, but you haven't had a chance to look at us, why I'm putting them on the screen for you to look at. I know, I guess I'd be able to go through your edits a lot quicker, because, yeah, I agree. It was like. No, I apologize. They got done so late. Just, yeah, no, let me know when you want me to scroll up. I think I'm okay with scrolling up, I'm not sure. Yeah, please do. I think we're coming to our first change that D is suggesting. I've been okay with everything they've read that you edited so far, too. So now we're at the under John Boniface. Like that's where Sue strikes some stuff and then you edit it. Yeah, so. So again, it just comes down to, I try to be succinct and D said more. So. All right. So the KP law, yeah, my addition was that KP law stated that if the Board of Registers found that the open meeting law violations occurred, then they would not have the power to declare the Board's actions on April 21st, null and void and said that the statement by KP law was false. This is again, John Boniface. There's no basis in law to support the statement. He had a conversation with the division of open government. Is that reflected in there? Yeah, I don't see that. He said, he said, can not only be remedied in court. Yeah, but that John Boniface said he went to the division of open government of the attorney general's office. Oh, that's not here. Yeah. So I think that needs to, because that has to do with, you know, where this particular council has sought some type of direction and information. And I think that's important to add into the minutes. So I believe his letter had also addressed this. Yeah, because then there's this, what attorney Greg Carball is saying, then doesn't have a referent unless we sum up what attorney John Boniface has had said. So anyway, I made several revisions that were sent to you all, including the pre-meeting coaching for Friday's meeting. I feel that should not go in the minutes as it's not part of the Board of Registrar's meeting. But it's part of attorney Boniface's comments. I'm good with all the other comments. I don't think that starting from like I said, there was a pre-meeting coaching and ending it to the, with only two or four members present on April 21st, I don't, I don't believe any of that needs to go in. Okay, well, it's public information now, but so he's commenting on what is public information. He also says there was no quorum of the Board's April 21st meeting because the town clerk was on vacation. I was not present. D. Shabazz was not present because doctor's appointment, Amber Martin was not assigned to be interim town clerk that day. So she did not have the power to sit on the town, basically be the town clerk and the town clerk's shoes with only two or four members present April 21st. There was no quorum under Massachusetts law. So I do think that's important from, again, it's attorney Boniface's analysis but there was no quorum under Massachusetts law. Those are his comments. That one I can agree to putting in there because below that it states that attorney Corbeau said that Amber Martin does stand in the shoes of the town clerk, you know, all legal standards. Okay, so if we could- So that makes sense to have that there. Okay, so if we conclude in that paragraph Boniface said that there was no quorum at the board's April 21st, just that paragraph because it is referring to something, of course, Attorney Corbeau had stated. Okay, I would agree with that, that's the other way. Hold on ladies, I just lost one of your sets of revisions D to cut and paste from, hold on. I'll be happy to send it. Oh no, I've got it here just for some reason that's not on my screen, but I'm gonna put it back. Okay. All right, so where am I cutting and pasting 40? What are we in consensus on? Okay, so- Good, I haven't heard from the everybody. Are we adding from the very beginning with the first paragraph and then the last paragraph? So I wanted to add that it said that the KP law stated that the Board of Registers found that the open meeting law violations occurred and they would not have the power to declare the Board's actions on April 21st. No, and boy, he said that the statement by KP law was false, was inaccurate. There's no basis in law to support that statement. He had a conversation with the Division of Open Government of the Attorney General's office staff confirming that that is not accurate. An attorney Boniface said that false advice highlights his second point, which you don't have to put that but he states, and then that's when you have there, he states that there's direct conflict of interest in having Ms. Goldberg or any other attorney from KP law advising the Board of Registers, the interests of the Town Clerk, Town Council and Town Manager are averse to the petitioners and the Board should be independent. So that's the first part. And since you all object to putting in about the pre-meeting coaching, the last paragraph that I include is, Attorney Boniface said there was no quorum at the Board's April 21st meeting because the Town Clerk was on vacation. D. Shabazz is not present because of a doctor's appointment and Amber Martin was not assigned to be interim Town Clerk that day. So she did not have the power to sit in the Town Clerk's shoes with only two of four members present on April 21st, there was no quorum under Massachusetts law. I think there was a quorum on that day because Amber was filling in on shoes. The only thing is, in the record, it doesn't show that Amber voted. Yeah, I got you. These are simply Attorney Boniface's names. Yeah, I know, I know, I know, but I'm just saying, hold on please. You know, I'm just clarifying as far as like what the, what the situation is. All right, well, I've caught in place the first and the second pair are the last paragraphs of changes. And D didn't have any real, any edits for the Greg Corbos section. I have no problems with what to, roll up a little. So under attorney Carol Grace comments. So the main, to me, the main part of that is the, and you can decide whether to put the second paragraph revision, but the first paragraph revision, I think is important after, let's see. Oh, it's changed here, okay. Okay, so what, what I don't see included here is the discussion about deliberation and the delegation of authority not being fully understood. Those were part of her comments. And I think those are important edits to make. So the paragraph that I included, agenda discussed delegation of authority under charter sections 8.2, 3 and 4, no member of the public would know what that's talking about, her comments. Second violation is that you're not allowed to send out emails about the topic to be discussed in advance, that violated deliberation component of the open meeting law. And then of course says, redivision of open government language about what is considered deliberation. Email before April 21st meeting that explained everything was deliberation. And again, these are her comments, not ours, but they're, you're different. So I, oh, I'd be a part. I've already put them in there, so let me know. I personally don't think that this, and the final of the agenda discussed delegation of authority under charter section, no member of the public would know what that's talking about. So that's her opinion that's in there. But the second violation is that you're not allowed to send out emails. So she's assuming that emails that sent there was discussion deliberation. Now, for me, looking at that, somebody who's reading this that didn't hear other comments at the meeting, there was no email sent that would, I believe, then considered deliberation. So I think that somebody reading this could say, well, the Board of Registers, look, it's in there. They must have done that. It says right there, it was a violation. But that didn't happen. So I don't agree that that part should be in there. The second violation down through the rest of that from that down. I don't agree that that's the next. It could give somebody the wrong impression about that was her opinion, but it doesn't clarify that that wasn't actually, you know, there was, that didn't happen. Okay, for me though, even though I disagree with it, it does say Carol believes at the beginning. So I'm assuming everything underneath that, that's just her opinion that they talk about it, as opposed to the facts of the truth. I can't agree with that, Jackie. I just, I don't know, I don't know. I'm sorry. Did you say you can or cannot? I agree with you saying that underneath it being, you know, her opinion, I just feel like sometimes, I know people will not go back to that and not remember that that was stated up there. Unless there's another way that it can be like, you know, at the end of it, that this is again, her opinions and there is no. Okay. But maybe, but maybe additionally, somewhere add again that Carol believes a second time to make it clear. I'm okay with that. I just, I, there was no, you know, somebody could just take out that the second violation was that, and then only remember that. Well, I'm okay if we can add another her opinion. Yeah, her opinion, also something like that. So that do, like it's a little clarification. Yeah, her opinion, yes. Is that you're not allowed to send out emails. I think that's a little better, yeah. Yeah. And that way, I think that reads a little bit better. Can I scroll on? Yeah, and then D had some changes. I'm not seeing, I think it's still under Carol's section where the board can redo the April 21st meeting, can do what attorney general can do, no location of fire meeting. Is that, was that somewhere that was in, oh, it just got separated online. Okay. Sorry, correct that. I'm good to hold on on public comment. That's a little easier to read. Is that better? I like the larger print myself. Me too. There we go. Okay. We just keep improving as we go here. Okay. So unless Jackie has something to amend to their comments, yeah, scroll up. Thank you so much. So. Well, yeah, but that's okay. Well, just leave it as is. It's what I said, it's pretty much what I said, but I wish I had just expanded a little bit more, but hey, it is what it is. So Sarah McKee, you know, again, in trying to condense what's there, I think the recommendation of nullification of the vote, taken immediately following deliberation, you know, you don't have to use my words, but that's basically what they're talking about. You do reference that they want us to seek guidance from the AG's office, but they also suggest nullification of the vote taken on the 21st, I guess is what's implied there. But on the flip side, if you say that, then to me, shall we say a healthy balance on that would have been, well, something else, I don't really want to go into that either, as far as, but that to me should be balanced. I'm sorry, what? As far as like, okay, the nullification that you're talking about, there was nothing wrong with the meeting, it's just that there wasn't a quorum present. Okay, no, I'm talking about what Sarah McKee, I mean, I have something longer than that, but I'm just trying to get at, you know, what is different in what Sarah McKee is saying within her statements to press, what's going on? Yeah. I got you, but I thought you talked about the nullification of the meeting. Well, she says that, so she says, yeah, so she says, you know, I think we have that. She's been a part of the bar for 40 years, references the AG case on the open meeting law. She references a particular case, the Dudley Planning Board for Deliberation and AG's office recommended imposing an order for nullification of the vote taken immediately following the proper deliberation, request town's guidance from the AG's office in order to rectify what's clearly a gross violation of voters' rights on this matter. Okay. But the point I'm making is it's about the quorum and also she didn't mention anything about the content of the meeting. Because again, to me, people getting the voters petition, people thought that that was the place where they would have gotten permission to redo stuff. Okay, I'm just trying to sum up. Yeah, okay, but I'm just saying to me, that's kind of like the, you know, the sidebar comments on that one off to the side comments, but it wasn't in the meeting. I have to agree with that, sort of. Anyway, go ahead, sorry. Nope, those were my revisions. So it's just up to you all. Oh, no, it can, it can, it can go in, it can go in. But I just would have liked to see in a little more, shall we say beef on that, but it's not, the beef isn't there. Is that enough? And then on Nancy Sardisson, I think that line, that first line, should read for accuracy, spent half of her life as a voting rights lawyer. There's not a voter lawyer, a voting rights lawyer. For the department, for the DOJ, you could just abbreviate it. So, what's this point, is that? Oh, okay. That's our address. Okay, okay, I got a little bit to not use, because it says 49 jinx did not use street. Oh, yeah. Doesn't make any sense. Yeah. So that should, I guess to sum it up, disqualifying Barbara Elkins, who used the abbreviation LN, rather than writing out lane, and then 49 jinx, because we didn't use, I don't know. So I'd have to listen to it again. That's probably an error on my part. Yeah, and the one we've got up on the screen says, did not use street, did not use apartment numbers. Okay. All right, so, I think, wait, where is she? Did we put in that, she's not, let's see, those Jim Crow, okay, because she starts talking about voting rights, and that's what she looked at when she's part of the DOJ. She says she's not here about the library, which is a political issue. Says she's here about being a constitutional issue, and that's what she was referring to, disqualifying Barbara Elkins, who was one of the signees, is a constitutional issue. It's a voting rights issue. And she goes on, so Barbara Elkins, and then Lucas, another signee put zip code in the address. I think you have that, and sign substantially is registered, it's clear that the discretion was abused in the affidavit state that. So it's again, whether you all wanna include that, but that looks like a summation. She actually had details about some of the affidavits in the signatures. So I'm with you adding that stuff too, everybody. So from not hear about library, a political issue, and this is a constitutional issue, and all the way up to the word 49. Yeah. Okay, are we on to, are you, yeah, I think that's fine for a Sardis, and are we on to Jasna Reggie? I'm also okay with the edits from Jasna, from Dee. Yeah, it's just the only thing that she, she was a, she collected signatures. I don't know if that needs to be, I think that's fine what you have there, except she also collected signatures. I had more on Jasna, about the 200 of the nearly 1,100 Amherst voters, one in five had their names thrown out, but yeah, again, that's been said elsewhere. Michael Sardis, are we on to there? See. Yeah. All right. So I think that- Just to identify him, I added the attorney practicing for 40 years. Yeah, and I think that's fine, what you have there, unless someone else has something to add. I think that's good. So onto Maria Kopicki. Yeah. Okay, at this point too, with these additions for Maria. Okay, great. For Terry Johnson, any? Yeah, I think that sums up, I mean, Terry obviously had things to say about, you know, transparency and democracy, but you all are fine with it, fine with it. All right, so onto Peggy Matthews Nelson. Yeah, you know, I don't know why that was taken out, but you know, Peggy did say something to the effect of, it's unreasonable to require residents to go to court to correct the assistant town clerk's mistakes, whether you wanna put that or not, but it's unreasonable, that was part of their main point. And maybe if you threw in alleged, because she doesn't know for sure what had happened, so maybe she alleges or something like that, in this particular case. Well, then we would be misinterpreting or misquoting Peggy Matthews Nelson, but the many- I'm not just saying she's a legend. Yeah, well, the main point actually is our, it's unreasonable to require residents to go to court to correct the mistake. But you're saying that it's a mistake, that you're correcting, you're alleging that it's a mistake, it hasn't been proven. Yeah, again, Peggy's thoughts and words, not mine. I understand that, I understand that. Maybe even just unreasonable to require courts to go to court to correct the alleged town clerk's mistakes, because you're not giving her a direct quote anyway, it's a summary. Well, what Peggy believes to be a mistake. All right, Peggy believes it may be a mistake. I think, gum, we should leave Peggy's as it's corrected on the screen. I just added, do you want me to take that out? The court part? Hold on, let me. Yep, take a look. But that's what it says here. I'll use it. It's unreasonable to require residents to go to court to correct the assistant town clerk's mistake. That's her from her. Yeah, I think I'm fine with having what she believes to be the assistant town clerk's mistakes. Like, it's out there that that was her opinion, but it, I'm fine with it up there. Okay, no, I'm okay with those, as long as she believes you're not stating it as fact. So how many years were you thinking? All right, so, D, are you fine with how it's been? Yeah, I'm fine with that. I'm on the, is it Elizabeth Gilbert? Okay, I'm Elizabeth Gilbert King. I've been in every election since 1981. Signatures are indicative of identity and intent. The legal rule is unless a statute specifically prescribed a particular method of making a signature, it is legal. All signatures are expected to do is signal that you intend to adopt an agreement. So that's new. And it's something, again, that this particular commenter obviously wanted into public record. And I'm fine with these additions, if other people are. You talked about Peggy Nelson. Elizabeth Gilbert. Yeah, Elizabeth Gilbert. Okay, okay, wait a minute. I'm gonna go back, so I'm mulling over a few other things. Sorry, a little bit behind. Okay. Now, bottom line is, some boards and committees only put down, these are the people who comment, they don't even put down what their comments are. We had all this and it doesn't have to be a transcript. So we were trying to get the gist but not have to have verbatim. That's where we, that was our starting point. Okay. Oh, I'm okay with Elizabeth. Sorry about that, Elizabeth and yeah, I'm okay with that. Sorry. A little slow here, it's late in the day, what can I tell ya? I must have got up early today. Yes. I did. We're almost through, so the, of good cheer, we're almost through. It's a blood miracle. No. Do you want to scroll down to Molly Turner now? They're right there, here we go. They're on top of the screen. I'm fine with Molly Turner. All right, so I'm good with it too. Jackie, are you happy to date with that one yet? Give me one more second, sorry. Just want to reread it one more time. No, that's fine, that's fine. I'm good with that, I'm good with that. Okay, Anita Sorrow, I think they're extensive but I would just, I guess, suggest because it's so sparse right there in relation to what she did say. Let's see, that she was wrong. I mean, we don't have to say she's wrong about the charter but that's in essence what she's saying. All she feels, so what she feels. Handling of petition suggests charter was designed to exclude rather than include and no desire to give serious consideration to the petition or to adhere to legal processes unless they serve the desired goals of those in power. And I think I wrote, is a lawyer, so that should be as a lawyer who represented large influential nonprofit corporations because I know her, that's what she, I think that's what she was saying. I'd have to again go back and see verbatim but she urges the board to examine the law and consider obligations it imposes to serve, not the town manager, the town council but the people of this town. So I think that's the main gist of what she's saying there. We don't have to put it all but I think some of it should represent her words. Well, personally, I like the shots myself but that's me. I'm okay with what she added but that's just me and my friends. Me, it doesn't really matter but. Well, down second here I play dumb next to compost. I'm gonna take out feels the charters being used to benefit the town council because it's stated in a different way below. And this too, does he say that too? Just again, it's just more expounding. Okay. So then we had Carol Gray and Krista rising. I know Krista had submitted through the chat section which I noticed we don't have chat for right now. Yeah, so then Carol Gray had submitted that Barry Brooks resident Barry Brooks was disqualified for an S which is his signature that was completely legible. A couple of signers were disqualified for addresses because they wrote out their street crossbrook through the voter rolls. Mod Beaching Low wrote her address clearly. So I just feel that since that's part of, you know, again, public record of who these folks are, it would be important to include Carol Gray's, the summation of Carol Gray's comments. And that spoke to the disqualified signatures doesn't really capture. Yeah. But hasn't she several times they've talked about that crossbook address. But there's other people. Yeah, I know, I know, I know, you know, you know. So the way I see it, in my opinion, she's already spoken enough of it and spoke to the disqualified signatures adequate in my opinion. But again, she didn't speak to these people. So for them. I understand what you're saying. Yeah. I understand, but it's been another, other other sections and other places. So she's gotten a point across. That was my Jaleen. Yeah, right. But in the public record, these particular folks. This is public record. It is public record. With these comments in this meeting. The comments in this meeting are public record. That's what I'm saying. So we need to write it in for Carol Gray. Well, if you want to write it in for Carol Gray, write it in. But the way I see it is in other things that, that she's, you know, written. So, but if you want to write it in, write it in. It's adequate. Oh, where'd Jamie go? Hold on. Jamie's not there. Let's wait for Jamie to come back. But it's showing Jamie. I'm still. There she is. Oh, you're my, you're muted. Okay. We're back. Okay. Sorry. Everything okay? Yeah, I think that, I think that we might just, I mean, we've, I have no problem with adding to Carol Ray and the poster rising stuff. I just don't know how, you know, when you're putting people's names and addresses in there and it wasn't them. You know, somebody else made a comment. Is it okay to have that kind of information? I mean, it's out there already, but it's not okay. It is. I'm okay with both Carol and Christa's addition on there. So what are you? Okay. Is that, yeah. Give me two seconds. All right. Is everyone else good with what she, Sue just added so we can go to skip to the section four review of the meeting on. I don't like that. Red comments and then comment red. Oh, okay. Hold on. I'm going to do a quick say. Sure. Getting kind of far into this. Okay. Well, for a bit I should lose this. So you've got read comments by Christa and then comments red. Pick a lane. How's that? How's that? Okay. All right. And actually comment. Let's just. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah, that's good. Let's see. So later on or the motions included in this or is this all discussion that you have reflected here too? Under four discussion. Yeah. No, no, there's all your motions. So this is all the discussion before the motions. Okay. So if you can, you make the any bit like so we can see more of it or that's pretty much all we get. If not, it's fine. It just, Can you read that though? No. No. So yeah, that's the problem with this. All right. Then the way it was was fine. I just was trying to get more for. Actually, let's try something else. Don't get sick now. Probably worse because it's bigger readable. That's okay. Okay. By the way, we're able to go into our own view options and enlarge. I don't know if you all know that. John, are you still here? Yes. Yes. Maybe if some of the ladies would like to try to enlarge their screen, you can tell them how to do that. Oh, I'm good on it. You're good on it? I think that that was applicable to me, but I got my glasses on, but it's just that can read better without them. Okay. Thanks anyway, Sean. Yeah. I've got down through onto like the next page where the Shabazz wants the board to be transparent. Like yeah, I'm okay with everything that has been added from there up. Everybody else? Everybody else is good. Let me just backtrack on this. You're saying you want that out? Is it in or out? No, I was good with it in. I was just kind of thinking so she could scroll up some more and we could go on to more. I was okay with everything that had been added. Okay. I thought you all had already gone down the bottom. Okay. I got you. Okay. Jackie, you're looking at the one on your hard copy, but you want to make sure you're looking at the one on the screen. Yeah. Oh, I actually have my right here. Oh, good. Okay. I'm good. A multimedia. Some's in hard. Some is on the tablet. Me too. Stuff everywhere here. Actually my printer died. That's why I couldn't print it out. Oh, I'm kind of up to date with everything from made above the first motion. I kind of stopped there because I feel like we'll probably start discussing more stuff there, but I'm okay with everything before that first motion. The only thing I'm, I don't know if it should go there somewhere, but like we're starting to discuss like, like attorney Boniface is, you know, if he signed and that kind of stuff, if that should be, I'm fine with all of that, but whether it should be there further down, I don't know what other people's opinions are. Actually it's in the order in which it happened. Right. All right. That makes sense. Oh, is there, should we, is everybody okay to move down and start with the first motion? Sure. Okay, if you want to advance up. Everybody ready? You, can you scroll a little bit more? So hold up. I'm trying to figure out where we are on that. So that's why I lost a little bit too, because I was trying to figure out what was down below a little bit further. Basically before every motion in the old set of minutes, this is what we were missing was all the discussion before the motion. Okay. Okay, so, so you'll see, look for a vote two, two, and then before the next motion, that's all your talk. And then the next motion would be. So this is the fourth motion at that point. The bottom one, Demetria Shabazz move, Jamie Wagner seconded to have attorney. Yes. Okay, that's what I'm trying to. Yeah, I know it's, yeah. Okay. Okay, I don't know for, let's see for attorney Boniface states that the meeting should be null and void as there was no delegation of authority. The very actions of the town clerk's office sought this delegation shows it wasn't implemented to begin with. And then there's an addendum here felt that the town charter did not override the open meeting law and that the board has the power to take action. Okay. So that was the addition. All right. Just sounds right. Okay. Okay. I don't know which one came first. Was it to have John Boniface speak again? And yeah, but I'm just looking at the previous notes on this, I guess it's now the fifth action. I mean, the fifth motion. So... I think you've made a couple of motions that didn't go through and I think we took one out because it didn't happen. Oh, but it should still be part of public record. Yeah. Well... So that would be one, two, three, four. This was the fifth motion is what I'm trying to understand. I know I see where you are. Yeah. And so it just reads differently than what was in the original minutes. And I'm trying to understand, does that make the same point in the motion and it looks different? Well, what you've got up on the screen is actually almost verbatim for what happened. Looking at transcripts and listening to the meeting. Yeah. So, but what the first set of minutes, I don't think it was exactly, I think it was so confusing that things got put in the wrong place. Okay. So there were a lot of motions made and then they were half made. You know what I mean? It's like you're not going to put that in the minutes. At least this reads, okay, here's the motion, it passed, then he spoke. Yeah. Actually, to that point, it doesn't really say motion allowed or anything like that. Let me just, there's no real vote. So I think sometimes we just allowed it. It didn't get voted. That's the way I see it. And that's something probably we need to tighten up in the future. Yeah. As far as like having a format that we agreed upon and that we can use during the meetings. Because where I see it a lot of from the recollection, John was just giving them permission to talk as opposed to we voting on anything that he said. So I don't, in some respects, it's like a motion. Well, I don't know if you can see it. Or you mean we voted on allowing him to speak? Yeah. I believe we did. We actually- That's what I'm saying. We did take a vote on allowing him to speak. Right. And it just wasn't recorded. We'd probably have to go back into the recording to see that. But I believe we did, we were trying to adhere to Robert Rules of Order and didn't take a vote. But this is where the format needs to be standardized if we're going to do this in the future. You know how- Well, Robert Rules of Order, that's the format. So we just needed to adhere- But even still, but even someone, I've been looking at Robert Rules and formats, they switched depending on the type of industry and different things that you're working with. But anyway, should we discuss in the future? So shall we, do we want to put something after that? Do we want to say, Attorney John Boniface was allowed to speak? And that's when he got moved in. That's when he got moved in second, as far as like what he would be allowed to speak a couple of times during that meeting. That's what we were doing. Cause we've got the moved and we've got the second. Yeah, cause that's the fourth motion there. And so then this fifth motion, let's see, that probably was the vote and it just got put into the motion again. I have the transcript. Yeah, we all do. I know, and I listened to it. It's just very confusing because things were half said and half and cut off. And, you know, I think the gist of what happened though, is the important thing. Who spoke when, what did they say? Whether it was voted or not, it doesn't matter. It was allowed. It happened. Right, that's what I was just gonna say. If there's like, you know, there's obviously things that need to have a vote taken on them and that needs to be on record. But certain things, there's probably like just the general consensus and maybe it doesn't necessarily warrant a vote. But obviously it was allowed cause it goes on just in the next paragraph, just what he said or whatever. So, but again, I think Jeff was right. We need to, I guess kind of, I mean, to our, you know, benefit or our side or whatever, we don't typically have meetings like this. I mean, we've, this is all kind of new to all of us. So I think having that meeting going forward and the open meeting on training that will help us kind of, if we are faced with this again, know the proper way to handle things. Yeah, because also, you know, even the process, I know that the chair can allow him to speak, but, you know, just maybe, again, also figure out ways that that can be allowed. And like whether or not they should have been given a time limit, you know, things like that is probably what we need to, you know, talk about too. I'm gonna leave her alone. Yep. For now. Okay, moving it up a little bit, okay. Things for the future. Yeah, I think within the time code of an hour and 56 minutes, 51 seconds, that it looks like I made a motion to have attorney John Boniface offer a different point of view in terms of legal counsel. Sue said, is there a second? And there was, I don't hear a second, and then Jamie Wagner. I'm gonna second only because I'm sorry, I wanna see, I guess, I wanna hear another perspective also. Where is that? That's time code 156. No, no, no, where is that here in the minutes? Where should that be here in the minutes? Yeah, that's what I'm trying to get at. Was there a vote? So we didn't, I think Jackie has a point. So then Sue says, okay, then attorney, you'll have five minutes to speak. And Greg Carbo, Madam Chair, through you. Anyway, he cautions, it's usual. And then let's see. So is that? So he begins to speak? Yeah, so he begins to speak. And the thing is we didn't take a vote on it. It was seconded by Jamie. And I guess we're assuming that, well, if it's seconded by another board of registrar, then if it would go to a vote, but we shouldn't make those assumptions, we need to have a roll call vote on these items. On every motion. But that's, but it's reflected in here then. So that's when he spoke, okay. I just wanted to make sure that was accurate to Jackie's point. So Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. All right, so we're on that fifth motion. The only thing I have to add later on in that have to do with my specific comments under that last motion, they're pretty severely abbreviated. Oh, so after, so can I scroll up? This is after we're the very last sentence. So the next part is not there. Let's see. So Jamie Wagner stayed, there's no violation of the meaning law. Where's that? Very last sentence on page six. Oh, I see. And then yeah, so then I have Okay, your comments. Yeah, okay. So let me get your comments up. And I would recommend you not put that in about leaving the board. I'm sorry. I said, I wouldn't put that in there about you leaving the board. Well, it's just my frustration. It does reflect accurately. Okay. Frustration. Frustration. Go right ahead. Okay. It would be nice someday to talk to you about some of the stuff that you had said in here. I found it quite interesting, but I don't think that the appropriate time and place. So I'd like to talk to you someday about what I used to do when I was a kid. I have a whole black history project left to talk with you about it. We can record it. We can add it to the archives. They're going to the library. No archives. No archives. Me and you. It's what I do. Professor. I know. Yeah. But normally I don't talk about myself so feel privileged. Okay. Yeah, but I love storytelling. You know, I think it educates so many folks. Love to do it. I'm not saying I'd be averse to it. Love to do it. All right. Okay. So let me know under, then Sue Adette stated that the board, let's see. Oh, okay. So then there's that discussion. Yeah, there was, yeah. So there's your stuff I plunked in there. Yeah. I appreciate it. Okay. So what I think, Sue, is that that is where it has there at the bottom. Dmitri Shabazz stated that she's going to leave this board as she comes to the first. That's where my comments should appropriately go, I believe. In relation to... Okay. You see what I'm saying? Yep. So then that first line, so Dmitri Shabazz. Oh yeah, we're repeating here. Let's see. Right. Let's see. So you could just, Dmitri Shabazz discussed about whether the notice requirement of open meeting law was violated because you know, because yeah, I repeat that later. So... Oh my, are we at the end? This part of our meeting? Yeah. I know, I'm saying of the minutes, of the minutes. Yeah. All right. So I'll make a motion to approve this set of minutes as amended and... I second it. All right. So with a second, let's take a vote. So Jacqueline Gardner. I agree to adjourn. Oh, no adjourn. We're just in the middle of the area. Oh, I'm only kidding. He has to approve the minutes. Yes, that too. Suadette. Yes. All right, Dmitri Shabazz. Yes. And Jamie Wagner, yes. So these minutes are now approved and will be placed on file in the town clerk's office. So now to the next part of our meeting is just now continuing May 24th meeting to discuss the open meeting law complaint by Ms. Carol Gray dated May 14th, 2021. Discussion and vote to authorize the submission of the response, which is what was sent by KP law that we should all have copies of. So I don't know if we need time to review that or if people have reviewed the minutes. I make a motion that we not submit KP laws response until we have had time to discuss this in our executive, our scheduled executive session meeting. But to be honest, what's the date approximately for this KP law that you're talking about? Is that something that we got recently? No, it's the open meeting law complaint dated May 14th. Okay. Attorney Corvo's email to us with their response was dated Friday, May 28th at 3.53 PM. Okay. Yeah. So when Attorney Corvo, I see still here, when does this have to be filed or when does the response have to go in to meet all the time constraints? Oh, there we go. Thank you, through you, Madam Chair. So you have 14 business days from receipt. So if you receive this on the 14th, June 4th is the deadline. So, you know, I still would restate my motion because I don't agree to submitting on our behalf as the board of registrars a letter from the attorney apparently representing the town of Amherst this letter, if we ourselves have not discussed it since it involves litigation having to do with the board of registrars. Was this separate from the lawsuit though? So we, the meeting, the executive session that we were going to have the meeting on was in regards to the losses. So this is just the open meeting law violations. I think those are still need to be two separate things. Yes. Definitely two separate things. Yes. This is just our response to that complaint to the AG's office addressing each of the issues in that complaint. Right, that's all this says. I still feel we should discuss it, but. Well, that's what we're supposed to be doing right now. Yeah. So should we take a couple of minutes? Well, a few minutes and read up until the first discussion for section number one, the minutes of the board, like that's the first complaint. And so we're familiarized with what's before that and then start with each complaint. Okay. Are you going to put it up on the screen Sue or? Oh, let me see. I shall try. And I'm a little bit confused too. Is the letter that Greg Corbow responding to one, the May 14th open meeting law complaint? Is that what we're getting at too? Yeah, I think that's what we're doing right now. Is that's what we're reviewing that? Okay. Response and approve it or not approve it to be sent. To approve his letter, right? Right. Okay. I think that's typically, if I've understood everything correctly, that's typically the kind of the chain of events that happens if there's a complaint, it goes through the town attorney. Yeah. Yeah. Not again. I just want to make sure because again, I don't want to like cross over into the litigation during this meeting. That's why I want to make it perfectly clear as far as like exactly what we're doing with this letter. Okay. Hold on. I was still in the middle of saving the last set of minutes. I hadn't even finished that. Okay. All right. Let's see here. Does everybody see? Oh wait. So I propose a revision to the third paragraph, first sentence for the reason set forth below the board denies that there is a violation of the open meeting law with respect to the timeframe in which you create it and approve minutes from its meetings on April 21st, May 7th, May 10th and that this portion of the complaint has been rendered moot by the approval of the minutes from those meetings during the board's duly noticed public meeting held on June 1st. I could see a revision that there is some merit to the part of the complaint that states April 21st meeting minutes were not filed within three meetings or 30 days. Otherwise that's inaccurate. And attorney Carball on the May 24th meeting admitted to that inaccuracy. Madam chair through you. Go ahead. Go ahead. Thank you. That is not inaccurate nor is it what I quote unquote admitted to at any prior meeting. If you scroll down to the discussion of that topic what you will see is a quotation from the attorney general's regulations. Yeah, stopped right there. So what the regulations specifically state are that a timely manner will generally be considered to be within the next three public body meetings or within 30 days, whichever is later unless the public body can show good cause for further delay. And as I will explain further down below it is my opinion that the board did in fact have good cause for the delay in not approving the minutes at its last meeting which would have been within the timeframe because it was pointed out that those minutes did not accurately reflect what occurred at the meeting. And in my opinion, it is good cause to take additional time to ensure that the meeting minutes are accurate rather than approving something that may not be accurate. And so it's my position that there is no violation of the open meeting law regulations because there was in fact good cause for the short amount of further delay that occurred. Well, I don't agree but I guess we can vote on that because this is supposed to represent the board of registrars. So I just think you're backtracking at this point, attorney Garball, on saying that they were created but not approved and that the 30-day time limit should be interpreted as the board approving draft minutes or at least having the board present it with the draft minutes which didn't take place. So I don't agree. I'm okay with it as long as there is that provision that it is within, cause I mean, there is that reasonable delay kind of clauses in there and that applies to this and I'm okay with that being spelled out in the thing later on. No, I'm okay with that. I'm okay with it too. So are you saying that the first, that third paragraph first sentence should be revised to reflect? This provision? I don't see anything wrong with that. So attorney Garball, it sounds like we would like that third paragraph first sentence revised. That's not what I heard. No. That's what I heard. It is not what I heard and if that's the case then there should be a vote to that effect. Okay, well, so Madam Chair, you would have to decide that not attorney Garball. Okay, give me one second. I'm just reading a little bit more, hold on. All right, so I guess I'm gonna ask the board. So I agree with what attorney Corbill had said that if there is a provision that allows for time, you know, a reasonable delay which he saw with our last, you know, the ministering and approved at the last meeting, we needed to push it off. But if there is a provision that allows for that to happen, then I'm okay with how he has it stated originally in this. I don't know if that, going forward to who we're submitting this to, if that needs to be put in this letter, excuse me, not minutes, I'm so stuck on minutes right now, if it needs to be put into this letter, but as long as that provision is whoever is getting this letter knows that provision or knows that, I don't know that it needs to be changed at all. This is the attorney, so Jamie, just to be specific, this is the attorney general for the state of Massachusetts that's getting this letter and that has received the original complaint from Carol Gray. So, you know, it's the highest legal office within the state of Massachusetts, that's who's getting this letter. And so what is stated on paragraph three first sentence for the reason set forth below, the board denies that there was a violation of the open meeting law with respect to the timeframe in which it created and approved minutes from its meetings. That is, you know, this is a legal issue. So I think we need to be clear on what we are agreeing to with attorney Carball writing on the behalf of the town. Can I speak? I feel when you're laying out your case for anything, you'll state what your opinion is in the beginning and then all of the rest of your talk is supporting your opinion. And I think it's worded correctly because it states that there is no violation and then in the discussion as attorney Carball just stated, this is why. But there is, there was a violation and he said there was a violation on May 24th. But we remedied it. So overall, we remedied it by bringing it up again and fixing it because it was not, they were not correct minutes. So I would just say that, you know, we could say this for the seventh and for the 10th unequivocally, but to say it for the 21st, I believe there needs to be a different sentence that there was a violation, but we remedied it as soon as we were able to. In my opinion, oh, it's all right. As far as like, you don't wanna like give like a lot of wiggle room like casting doubt over what you're saying. I mean, it just sounds like ambiguous. Just, you know, go forth with what you got here. But if it's true, Jackie, why would there be doubt? What? Well, why exactly? So why are you doubting it? No, but that's this statement as it reads now isn't true is what I'm saying. Yes, it is. So to rewrite it with more specificity then you take out that doubt and it's accurate. I think it's accurate the way it is. I think that, I find nothing wrong with it. I really don't. That's just the way things flow. Then that statement does not represent me. Well, why don't we take a vote on it? And I just have clarified my original thoughts as we turn this up, but I after reading it and reading the discussion, I'm okay personally with how attorney Corbeau stated everything in the third paragraph and then how it spelled it out in the discussion. Now that I understand how kind of how Sue explained it as you're stating the facts, now here's why those facts are true. So I'm okay, cause I agreed with you, D. I mean, I made a mark on there originally to say, well, we were in violation in that April 21st meeting, but then attorney Corbeau's explanation to me and the fact that it's in the discussion section, I'm okay with how it is, because now I don't feel that we're in violation because we took the correct steps to remedy it and did it properly. So I'm okay with how it's written here. Yeah, and I would be in agreement with all of you except that, I write for a living and it's misleading to have this in the third paragraph is that first sentence and it looks like, again, we deny that there was any violation. There was a violation. There was a violation, we remedy this, but there was a violation. So that's my point. And I think that with it noting that it says, the today's meeting on June 1st is kind of saying that, that's why we're not, it's referencing the meeting today is kind of, putting everything into compliance at this point from how I'm understanding it. So should we take a vote at this section to approve or not approve this or should we look at the rest of everything and do it as a whole? I think for this section, do the vote on it and just move on to something else. I'll second that. At least get the ball rolling. All right, so Jackie, can you restate your motion? Just so it's there. All right, let's see. The paragraph, the way that the paragraph three is worded is what we want to say in our letter or something to that effect. I'm terrible and I too, I used to write for living too, but in fact, you may even see some of my work in the dictionary occupational titles and a few other publications, but hey, but anyway, that's beside the point. Okay, so I make a motion that we accept to paragraph three as is. Is that? Second to that motion. I know you would have seconded it earlier, but maybe just if you were gonna do it again. I just did. Second. Can you hear me? So the motion is on the table to accept paragraph three as it's written. We'll take a vote on it. So Jackie Gardner. I vote in favor of accepting paragraph three as is. And Sue Audette. I accept it. And D. Shabazz. I don't accept it. No. And Jamie Wagner. I do accept it. So now going through, is everybody, should we now start looking at the background label part of the letter and see if there's any discussion within that? Can you forward the letter there, Sue? Sorry, yep. I'm going off of my hard copy. So D, whenever, or Jackie, you guys can just tell her to scroll up whenever you need. Oh, okay. Cause I'm reading mine off of my tablet. All right. So can you just let her know when you want to go forward? Right back, ladies. We're 30 and we closed with the public, had to make sure our window was closed. So you can continue. Okay, you can continue, Sue. Did you read, did you get the last paragraph or no? On this page or the next page? This page here. I think I may have cut it off. So just let me know. You can continue. Okay. Donna Thos is spelled incorrectly there. Oh, it is. Uh-huh. Yep. Are we stopping at the discussion part and then we'll do this discussion separately or should we continue and do everything as a whole? Or do we want to approve the background section before we go to discussion? I think, unless it's an objection, we should just keep going. Sounds good. Sounds good to me too. Okay, you could advance up, Sue. Okay, you can advance. Okay, continue. Attorney Carbo, can you explain the repeated phrase naturally flow from the board's discussion? Yes, thank you through you, Madam Chair. So the idea here is that the meeting notice has to describe the topic that the board anticipates will be discussed. And within that topic, the board can discuss anything that is related to or naturally flowing from that discussion. So in this matter, the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the objections and the appeals that had been received. However, as part of that, an objection was made that that discussion should be postponed until after the discussion of the open meeting law complaint. And so in that respect, the open meeting law complaint was intertwined with the substantive discussion of the objections. And everything that the board discussed, at least as I observed it, was within the context of the objections and whether or not the board's discussion should wait until after the open meeting law discussion took place. Thank you. Okay, can you continue up, Sue? Attorney Corbo, do you feel if there's any reason to mention in just to keep us on point in the conclusion or anywhere that we agree to do the open meeting law training or anything like that, or do you feel like it's just not necessary to add that? I would defer to you and the board, Madam Chair. If you wish to include that, I don't think that it's harmful to the board's position to do so. If that would be the only thing for you guys that I would ask if you feel like we should add it. I mean, I know that if I agree to do that, then I'm gonna do it, but I know how sometimes things will fall through the cracks and if it's in there and it's in writing that we'll just hear that it gets done. No, I agree. I have a question as to why on this last paragraph, May 4th meeting. So, I mean, all the other meetings are referenced except the April 21st two-minute meeting and available on YouTube. Is there a reason why that's not included there? Attorney Corbo? Yes, through you, Madam Chair. So in this section, we're only discussing the board's discussion of the May 4th open meeting law complaint. And so the May 4th open meeting law complaint was not discussed at that prior meeting in April. And so the point of this is to demonstrate that there's a video of the discussion that took place on May 7th and a video of the discussion that took place on May 10th. And the idea behind the case law and the decisions of the attorney general is that when a board discusses something that is either not in their meeting notice or not sufficiently described in the meeting notice, then the cure for that is to discuss it at a subsequent meeting and to have that discussion be made available to the public because the point of the open meeting law is that the public have an opportunity to view your deliberations. And so the point of this last paragraph is to demonstrate that even if it's found that you shouldn't have been discussing the May 4th open meeting law complaint on May 7th, that the availability of the video and the subsequent discussion would cure any violation that might have occurred. But with that being said, if there is a video of the April 21st meeting, I would be happy to provide that as well. I just wouldn't put it there. I would put it somewhere else. Yes, please do. Add hyperlink within the letter or however it's to be added. Okay. Through you, Madam Chair, to the town clerk, do you know if that meeting was recorded on the 21st and if so, is that recording still available? As far as I know, it still is. Yes. It was available a couple of days ago because I reviewed it. Oh, very good. Okay. So can you send me that? Sure. Thanks. In fact, if they went to that YouTube channel, it should be right there. All the meetings should be listed. It's actually right on the top of the minutes. Yeah. April 21st. It's right there. Complete video is available online. Jamie is not in the meeting. I think she might have gotten kicked out. Sean, any assistance? Where'd she go? She keeps getting kicked out. Yeah. Let's see. I do not see her as an attendee either. No, she got kicked out. Let me quickly text her. So I should come back. Oh, there she is. Okay. She beat me. Sorry, guys. I'm back. Yeah. Apparently, I just hit a threshold in it. Just likes to kick me out every time. Okay. So Jamie, I don't know where you cut out, but we are all in agreement that I will include a link to the April 21st, a link to the recording of the April 21st meeting. That sounds good to me. Thank you. All right. Did you guys vote, make a motion or vote, or do we need to do that? Or is just kind of like a housekeeping thing? Yeah, real quick, Sue. Can you go back a page, please? Thank you. So I just noticed, Attorney Carball on your summation of these different meetings that it does not include any reference within your summations to, you know, making April 21st is also a remedy, Nolan Boyd. So I think I understand why you would not, but that would be part of the meeting minutes and a summation of these different meetings in terms of the conversations that flowed, that that was a part of also a possible. Through you, Madam Chair. That's right, I did not address that in this letter. You know, this is a complaint about meeting minutes and approval of meeting minutes and what happened at the May 7th meeting. There was a complaint about what happened at the April 21st meeting, but there was no majority vote to agree on a resolution of that complaint. So that complaint has been submitted to the Office of the Attorney General and they will make a decision as to how to proceed. But in the meantime, it's my opinion that that is not the subject of this complaint and that there is no reason to address that issue here. Does anybody have suggestions on wording in the conclusion to add about the review of open meeting law trainings or is there a good way to kind of state that if we want to add it or if we don't want to add it? Madam Chair, through you, if I could suggest in that last paragraph, Sue, can you scroll up to that? Yep, so in the conclusion, I would say that in addition, the board intends to pursue open meeting law training through an approved program. Personally, I think we just leave it the way it is. Because there were other like other trains and different things of that nature. I just don't see it. I mean, I just don't see it in that personally. I mean, I'm not objecting to it, but I just don't see any added value that it's given it. Dee, do you have any thoughts on that? No, I think it needs to, if this is what we're submitting needs to go as is and not misrepresent what we're doing. Because although that was said as an aspiration, I don't see any indication that we're moving towards any trainings. Because then the other question that I would have as far as like from training, I mean, how many of the other committees and boards in the town of Amherst have had training on this particular matter? I mean, I'm not saying that we can't get it, but really isn't anything available in the way I see it. I think that we should be able to read and establish what our own guidelines are using the open meeting law. I don't understand why we can't design and develop something and even maybe talk to some of the other committees that are in town as far as like that, how do they handle it and whether or not they have any materials? That's the route I would rather go. Well, the open meeting law guide is given out by our office. So other boards and committee members when they are sworn in to office receive the open meeting law guide. Sue, when I was on AgCom, I thought, and I don't know if I'm just thinking of something different. I thought there was something that came around. I don't know if it was annually or every couple of years that there was like a thing that I did from home and I feel like it was on open meeting law. Were you like, I mean, is that something? Nope, that's conflict of interest. Okay, sorry. I'm just thinking about that. But I've worked at government agencies before whereas I pretty much as a program coordinator for that. And then like I said, different people have different styles as far as like how they, you know, set things up. So, you know, be up to us on how we want to do it. Cause again, I, you know, and even like when people were talking about as far as like how the, I know this, I'm sidetracking but as far as like when you look on the website, I have not seen any committee that that was announced for a meeting, for as a lay person where I can sit down and understand directly what was going on with that. But that's like I said, that was a little side thing on that one. So again, everybody should be in as far as I'm concerned to develop their own style and their own uniqueness for their committees. And certainly we certainly can put that on the agenda for when we finally sit down and talk about processes. What a call on boarding, all of that. Yeah, I think it's important again in our position as board of registrars, which is supposed to be transparent and democratic. I would appreciate more training instead of less and, you know, to go through our roles and responsibilities as a board of registrar. That is important. Also, we were given a lot of stuff for that. Yes, I know, but I think it warrants discussion regarding interaction with the town, the charter, petitions, et cetera. We need to go through scenarios. Again, protecting the vote and- Yeah, I hear you. That's why I like to read and get all the materials down. I'm trying to figure out where I'm going. Well, that was one of my first things as far as like I digress for a second. Yeah, we're digressing. Let's stick to this for now. No, what I'm saying is this, D, excuse me, but as far as like when you took your job, you should have taken it responsible enough to accept and read the materials that you were given. That's all I'm saying. I did, I did. So again- With the open meeting law. Thank you, Jamie, for making that suggestion. But I may be in agreement with Jackie here in that unless we are going to stick to these trainings and actually incorporate them into board of registrar's procedures, I would not want to misrepresent any remedy that is not actually in place with the board of registrar's. That's all. That sounds acceptable to me for sure. So I'm going to make a motion to accept attorney Corbos letter as presented to submit to the attorney general's office. Can I second it? All right, with a second, let's take a vote. Jacqueline Gardner. I'm in favor of accepting the letter as is. Sue Adat. Affirmative. D. Chavaz. I abstain. And Jamie Wagner votes to accept it as presented for submission. Okay, thanks. So I will get this finalized. I'll sign it. I'll include the attachments and I will have that emailed to the office of the attorney general by Friday. And we'll get CCs of the final copy. Yes. Perfect. With that being the last item on the agenda side from the unanticipated topics, I know we didn't anticipate scheduling that meeting for the executive session. So if people have a suggestion for a date for that, do we have any sort of time constraints on that too that we should meet? I don't know if that was brought up earlier. It's been a long meeting. So I kind of forgot. We were going to email each other what good dates were for everybody. We're just going to do that. Plus you were going to check with the town manager too. Okay. Is there any other items that need to be brought up? So. All right. If I make a motion to adjourn today's meeting. I second it. Oh, good. Should we do a vote? So Jacqueline Gardner. I'm in favor of adjournment. Do, now you can say that. It's too odd, dad. In favor. It's official. Each of us. Yes. And Jamie Wagner. Yes. So thank you everyone. Have a great night. Thank you. Thank you. You too. Thank you attorney Corvo. All right. Good night everyone. Good night. Thank you. Thank you, Sean. Uh-oh. Okay. It appeared on us. Goodbye all. Yeah. Okay.