 Okay, so we're going to start the meeting if that's okay for everybody. So introduction here, so why don't we just start by going around the room and everybody introduce yourself. I don't know. Say your name, whatever you feel needs to be said. Hi, I'm there. So I can see them. I was in work seven. I've been in full month. In 10 years this summer. So they're all very new to me, but I appreciate it having access to the NPA meeting. Learn about what's going on with me. And for the. Where did you live before? Well, many, many places, but I grew up in Texas. Texas. Just too much like democracy. Texas. Everything can be settled with guns. Okay, great. So I'm karma George. I live more than seven. I'm excited about the new steering committee and the new feelings and vibes and things going into this NPA so really excited. Okay. I'm Hank Presky from Ward four. And new to the end, well, new to the NPA here. And, but I don't have any experience with other NPAs. And anxious to be involved. Or glad to be. My turn. I'm deaf out and lived here. Since 1985 moved here from DC. Was involved in a neighborhood group in DC, right in DC. The NC's. Pardon the ANC. Advisory neighborhood council. You know, I'd be honest. I don't remember what it was called. Yeah. And then. And I used to attend these a lot, but then I had a period where I was going from Burlington lived in Jeffersonville for like a seven, eight years. And then I've come back. I mean, I had foot in both communities, but now I've been back for eight years here. And I've been gradually putting my feet back in things here. So here I am. Oh, and my background is in, I'm a writer and editor and used to be a journalist. I'm retired now. Awesome. I used to be an ace at grammar and all of that stuff and more and more I start going. Oh, is that right? So, you know, but, but yeah, I still, I really, yeah. And so that's my, that's my strength in this group anyway. So I think. That's what I bring to it. Your strength. Yeah, that's my strength. No, you are straight. Oh, I am. We're all strengths. We all have strengths. I'm Vicki Gerson word seven. What word do you live in? Oh, I'm sorry, seven. Yeah. That's why I was here. Okay. Okay, so just saying. Yeah, so, um, too much. So here, here is where I'm going to talk about our starting point. Okay. So we have an original document, which is the bylaws from 2008. And that's our starting point. And one of the catalysis for change was the app was a person who is transgender being treated poorly and and going to having the courage to speak up and go to the city and go to the city council and say, Hey, this is not right. The city council responded unanimously saying, Hey, this needs to be cleared up and NPAs need a clear non discrimination policy. So I would say that is our top priority in this meeting. Okay. And, um, Vicki has taken the time to put together some great recommendations. And the challenge here is that they're on the CETO version, which is a little bit different from the 2008 version. What I'd like to figure out how do we get it? Do we my question to all of you is, do we make this leap to the CETO version and just tell when we bring to the, the full community, do we say, Hey, we, we feel that the CETO version has a lot to offer or what do we say what why if someone asks us, why did you go from the 2008 to the CETO version? I don't think we're there yet, because I think that we have to determine, you know, what format we have so much to work to do, like determining what parts of the original, I think a lot of the original is in the CETO. It is. It's just, yeah, different. Yes, formats and different. And I think that. So that's why I'm just saying I don't think we're there and I kind of looked at the CETO version because I felt like at the last meeting that the intention was to push the CETO version. And so that's where I spent my time. And there are lots of, I did look at all of the the bylaws from the various wards, and I could see where CETO extracted ideas from them. Yeah, great job. Yeah, I agree. I think it needs work. I don't think it's a final draft. But, and I think it's important that we all feel comfortable with all the parts that are in there. And then we'll know what to bring to the people. Yeah. Okay. Not to bring up Robert's rules or anything, but I think if we're moving to a different version, I think we probably have to delete these, the current bylaws from our, in our, in our meeting. If we're taking on the CETO version, because that's the only thing that the city has. And if we're abandoning that. But, but I'm with the only road we would have to do that for sure. Right. I don't know that we would have to do that because we're revising. I don't know that we would have to do anything other because it's a revision. So, yeah, yeah, you revise something. You can change the whole thing. It doesn't say to what extent it's right. But if we're starting with the CETO version, it's very different than this. Right now we're just, we're just until we get to the point, we don't even need to think about that. I feel, you know, I mean, it's okay. I mean, I would start, are we able to decide to start with one as the skeleton of our new bylaws and then go back and look at the other and take changes from it if we want. So here, I am totally open to whatever like I just want to preface what I'm going to say. But I had a conversation with, and I don't want to speak for winter hood, but she, she expressed to me that she felt she has a strong feelings about that original. So, I don't, those are not my feelings, but I just want to share that somebody said that to me. So not that that's, you know, it's just that there may be people who have feelings about moving to the CETO version. I like the CETO version. So, why did, what do you guys feel like? You feel like the CETO is where we should just move to? Okay. I haven't, I wasn't kind of like, we sort of got a sort of needing to read the review. Yeah, but just like a personal opinion like we're seems like a nice opportunity for a fresh start. Yeah, so keeping the old format sort of doesn't really look like a fresh start. Yeah. And I also think like, just, I know that this is like a one pager and I know people sometimes like that. Yeah. But it doesn't have a lot of like, it doesn't come off as a community document or like war, like the version that I read from Vicki just feels like more welcoming. Yeah. And in plain language and like, you know, I know it's longer, but I think like, I had a preference. I preferred that one. It just seemed more meaningful than like, this just seemed really like rigid. Yeah. I also think what's important is we're revising them for a reason. There have been problems in this ward for a reason. There's been a history in this word that needs to change. Yeah, and I think that starts, and that's why I'm participating in these meetings, because if we want to encourage an environment that is inclusive that values diversity is inclusive. And people have a sense of belonging. It's critical that we reflect that in this document. Otherwise, we won't nurture that to be to come to fruition. So Deb, this is where when I was telling you about the note taking. If you could, could summarize this conversation. So we can have minutes so that when we go to the full community, we can have a conversation, we can preface and say, hey, this is the thought behind this change. And so like what both people have said. Like if you could summarize that. Yeah, yeah. And then share. Can you share it with before we put the minutes on the website. We'll send it out to this group and everyone can give you feedback on your make sure that those sentiments and feelings are clear and I could put the rest. You don't need to. Yeah, sure. So I, I, the feeling that I get Hank, are you on board with moving to the CD version. Sure. Okay. And I feel like everybody's read Vicki's edits right. I skimmed through them I have to, you guys want to take a moment to read it or Vicki do. Talk about it. What, I'm happy to talk about it. Please that'd be great. Let me throw out one thing. Yeah, I agree with what you're saying. Because the bylaws, I agree with both of what you say. Because the bylaws generally have more meat in them than a one page little, you know, you know, not to say that we need to be wordy, but, but they generally have more to them. And, and yet with the CD version, I feel like they're a little bit too wordy. But that's where I kind of come down a little bit, you know, I feel like they could be tightened up a bit. You know, that's, that's one thing. So I would, I have no problem starting with Cito and then I would edit. Okay, I like what you've added but then I would tighten them up. Right. So, so, um, hold on, I'm sorry. What, what are you raising your hand for? I'm going to say, if it's helpful for you all, I can put any comments or that would be a suggestion mode. And so you can see the changes live. That sounds great. It'll just be suggestions so you don't have to save the original if you guys are fine with me doing that. Yeah. Yeah, that sounds great. I know if you're going through any parts of it. So, one of the things I was thinking about in my mind is that where there have been issues in the community have been around matters of diversity and equity. And we want to promote an environment that is inclusive and where people feel like they're a part of it. I assume we're on that page. 100%. Therefore, at the beginning, I thought it was important to add those language, even though this is city.language from the city webpage, but that we included there. Because what we do later, simply adding a non-discrimination clause does not do justice and at the bottom, mind you, does not do justice to this part of the mission. Because it tells people what not to do. And it's kind of negative connotations with what DEIB is about. I think it's important to frame it in a way that a lot promotes an atmosphere that shows people what we are and what we're going to continue to move towards. So that was one thought and also just changing that were established. Okay, they're established now. More active, right? They're established and they're up and running. So that was my thought there. I changed the order. I understand the first one was to operate through democratic principles and procedures. But I think before we even get there, there's work that we individually have to do and by changing the order really holds people subconsciously, maybe consciously individually accountable for their part too. So recognize diversity as both a strength and an opportunity. Cultivate involvement of these are the same, right? Or did I change them? So I just changed the order and some of the language. So the one acknowledged the barriers to accessing decision making. I put that there because I think there has to be something in here honoring and we can change the language. It was a placeholder. Where there is voting, it's often not an equitable experience for people of marginalized needs and identities. And I think it's important that we become increasingly aware of that in this space. And obviously, this is new, a new discussion maybe for some of us here, but others of us know it very well. I agree with that. I just think that maybe there could be a little bit more explaining what that means for people who don't understand that. Well, so much could be acknowledged or be mindful of, you know, I was being really covert here, but acknowledge and or be mindful of the dynamics of privilege and power in a space. Okay. Well, here's what I was thinking. For example, acknowledge barriers to accessing decision making, such as people who generally don't have the, haven't had the privilege to participate or, you know, something that people can hear easy. Does that make sense or is that a, I think that it's knowledge and dynamics of privilege and power in a space. Okay. And how would we address that though, as an organization as this NBA, we can acknowledge them. What do we do about them? That's what I'm, I'm, that's what I'm thinking. Well, what, for example, like, it's hegemony, right. So, white male privilege is real. Sure. And if they're dominating a space or taking over a space to ensure that space is made for other voices. Okay. Just an example. Okay. Well, that's what I mean then. Acknowledge barriers and take steps to include. That's what I mean. You know, that that's what I'm saying to say what will we do to address it because otherwise, we can all say, yeah, we acknowledge that. And carry on. You know what I mean? That's what I mean. I don't mean to be, I hope I'm not being a pain in that. No, I appreciate that. Anyway, this, I just thought it was important for us to put something there in that space. That was just a, and also in the next one. I understand that people will may say, be a fun. It's okay that I move on to the next one. Of course, be a fun, creative and vital organization that provides value and benefit through the multitude of perspectives shared. And again, I added diverse there, because you might say multitude of perspectives. Well, that's diversity, but it could be a multitude of perspectives from one lens of experience. So I thought it was important to add that. Then further down again, the language participation by non members was just messy. You're bringing bringing joy to Deb's heart. You're bringing joy to Deb's heart. It was just messy. I was an English teacher. Oh, I was very. I was generous in not marking this up more. Yeah, maybe you should mark it up. Yeah, feel free. So I also thought using more active verbs. Yeah, I totally was a better approach. I mean, that's why that language changed. It was very wordy. I like number two. Yeah. With these conducting meetings and I, for those on online who don't know about this, like we had Joanne from our steering committee. Questioned, do we have to use Robert rules of order? And I thought, wow, that that would really free us up to really have some change and have conversation. So I'm looking that connects into these comments that you have here. I think that using, I think that using Robert's rules of order perpetuates division because there hasn't been exposure and experience with that manner. And there's already a gap in the way in which people communicate based upon many demographics. Yeah. So I think that further divides people and it's critical that we don't use it. That's my recommendation and that maybe should be an agenda item at our next meeting. Yeah, I think one of the things that I saw at our, what I'm going to call it our first NPA, because it's a really real first real change. Is when I was sitting there listening to people struggling with Robert's rules of order, I'm like, how can I stop this so that people can communicate. And so when somebody said, Hey, we can actually get rid of this. I was like, yeah, that's great. So we can actually people talk without having a manual, you know, so it's great. So I know, I mean, I guess at times when there's some really contentious, but how would you define that discussion, maybe it needs to come into play. Well, you know what, at the, at the facilitators meeting. One of the things she talked, they talked about was, um, I hate them myself. Well, they were talking, she said, Oh, well, you know, there was points where she was talking about conversation. You know, if someone calls the question and somebody's standing there saying, I'm not okay with this. I'm not done with this. And the whole room votes that were done. I asked the facilitator like, what do you do? And it was, she didn't really have an answer. And I was like, well, we're really about community building. So we got to, we got to figure it out. But Robert's rules of order is just going to bulldoze over people. And that doesn't admit, you know, may move the conversation, the meeting along, but it may not really resolve. And I think it inhibits, but it keeps people from speaking up. Yeah. Who don't know that because, you know, I'm like, yeah, because they don't want to be in violation. Yeah. Like forget it. Like I'll just let them thought, you know, I think it discourages, you know, other people who haven't been exposed. Yeah. Additionally, what the origins of Robert rules. Yeah, I'm sure they came from England, you know. Yeah. Robert was that. Well, and the very fact that we're following Robert, who are women in this room, Robert's rules. Yeah. Good point. So I think we would all agree. We don't want to have one person speaking. But I think like we can agree on something that's less formal. Yeah, just more respectful. And there may be parts of it that we want to keep. Yeah. Okay, so, so we're here on the portion of conducting a meeting. Interesting. I thought this is an interesting topic. And then some of the language in this one changed. And I'm not sure why Carmen you put full our steering committees full. What I thought that I saw that on your, there were like two vacancies on ward four on the page you created your page. I said full or you put. I put vacancies vacancies, but there are more than that we haven't. Yeah, determined a number. And what's in that. In the former bylaws is a maximum of nine. So I put on the website vacancies for ward four because I really feel like we're really lacking in four. There are vacancies in seven, but I wanted to emphasize. And so I can add, I can add vacancies in word seven. That our current was a nine persons per ward. Okay, so I'll change right group, right. Including a use from each word. I don't think there's a reason to change those. Okay, so I'll change that on the website and it's a minimum of three and a maximum of nine. I could get kind of unruly I would imagine. Well, if they're 18. I would think. Yeah, it starts feeling like maybe it's too, like having two separate meetings too many cooks in the kitchen kind of thing. Well, we started with seven we now have nine. And it's not balanced by word yet. But I'm, I think we would be fine simply adding people as it made sense. I agree. With a limit of 18. I don't think that we have enough knowledge to change that number at this point. So I agree with you, Hank. Yes, it's, it doesn't seem like it's an issue. Right. I would love for us to have that issue. Right. Oh my gosh, there's so many people who want to be on the steering. You know, I've not been attending the meetings, I admit. And so I don't know what all that led to all this, but they were begging for people to be on the steering committee. They were trying to get me to be on it. Oh yeah. And they were only three of them. So, anyway, I don't know if this is jumping into some, I just looked up there are alternatives. And there's a list up here and there's something called Martha's. Yeah. You know this. Yeah. Okay, I didn't know. Okay. And it was invented. They were developed by a general in the army here. They didn't come from me. But anyway, so I just, I'll send this to everybody if you want it later, but back to this. So, the terms, this was a part of CETO kind of extrapolating a little bit. And I'm not sure I agree with it, but steering committee members will serve one year terms commencing on September 1st and concluding on August 31 of the subsequent year positions filled at other times throughout the year will be subject to renewal during regularly scheduled. September and PA meetings. This part after serving for consecutive one year terms a steering committee member must step down from their position in a fully for a full year before becoming eligible to seek a reappointment unless otherwise specified in article three, regarding the filling of vacancies. I I don't. I think that might be problematic. And I'm not thinking of myself because we're here now. But I think about it in for marginalized populations like people are surviving in their own ways, living in a society that doesn't reflect them and that they often don't feel included in. And so for folks who may step forward. There I think they're fewer and they can be fewer and far between and those populations. And for that reason. I think we might be limiting. We can just get rid of it. And I think we can just get rid of it. We can just get rid of it. We can just get rid of it. We can just get rid of it. We can just get rid of it. You okay with that? So does everybody okay with that? I am. I mean, obviously, because people can be removed at any time. If someone was problematic, they can be removed. Yeah. You don't want to get into the thing where there's, it's always the same people. Well, it's, it's the membership that collects. I think Viggie's points are really important. I agree with that. Like the potty, the percentage of people that are not white in the state. Yeah. If it'd be like, oh, you're getting kicked off. You're the only person that. Yeah. And then if somebody that's that we have more diversity and that, that's not ish, but let's just like not get rid of people just because some random number. Well, I, yeah. But another thought is to thinking about it in that time. As we are a changing body. Hopefully. I've watched the demographic face of Burlington change my entire life. And I'm so grateful for the changes. Because when I was at Chevron elementary school, oh my gosh. Did you attend that as a kid? Yes. My family were the only black children in the school with the exception of two other. Children in the entire school. And by the time I got there, I think one of my brothers was already out of there. Maybe two of them. So it was just three of us. And so I also think of it in terms of as we do change. You know, my hope is that there will be more people stepping up to be involved. And I guess it can always be revisited at that time. Yeah. True. Let's get rid of it. Um, you good with the dad? You good with the Hank. Yeah. So I just want to point out we're getting onto getting close to six o'clock. Yes. Is everybody open to going past six o'clock to try to further this conversation. Does anybody have past? Sure. We have another meeting tonight. Yeah. You do. Well, it's at six 30. Right. So are you, are you okay with going to six 15? Or do you want more of a gap between the two? I mean, I'm not going to be here. Yeah, I need to leave about 10 after for a previous. Yeah, I don't really want it. So you want to end at six. I think we just talked about starting meetings on time and ending them on time. Okay. But you can also ask if people are okay with extending. And if you aren't okay with extending, that's okay. I'm just asking the question. So if you're not okay with extending, that's okay. No problem. I feel like I have a better sense. Okay. Okay. Next meeting will surely be able to start on time. Okay. I think like today we let lane laid some foundation. Do we want to make a mark, like make a note of where we ended? Well, it's it. That's all the changes I made. And again, if people are going to be looking at this, if we all focus on this one, compare it to the other one. And then come back. Yeah. Then we'll have something concrete. So I do want to keep all of the stuff. See, they'll put at the bottom. I don't care about the conflict of interest. I don't know how you don't have conflict of interest when you live in the community, but. As far as the miscellaneous stuff. Yeah, I like it all. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You like it all you said, or you don't like it. There's, there's two things that I think. We need to add. To really address what the city council's directors. Related to specifically what happened in our ward, which is we need a sexual harassment policy. And we need a grievance process. So those are not what city hall said for us to do. We don't need a sexual harassment policy. I don't think that's what they. City has. Yeah, no, it's not that I have it right here. What do you mean? I. I think for me, Vicky, for me, Vicky. What occurred around transgender. Extends into sexual harassment. And. I think it is. Part of what happened. So we can, we can, we can, we can talk about it more next time. And then the other thing is having a clear grievance process. So if you are. Experiencing something that you have somebody to turn to that you can go to. With confidence that they will support you. And addressing it. So, so let's, let's just table table this conversation until next time. And. And we can take out from there. So do we want to choose a date? Well, I just want to follow up. So the fourth things the city said you have to have. Okay. Okay. So. Yeah. Yeah. Non-discrimination. Yep. Right. Election and removal of officers. Okay. That's both in here. Open meeting law. That's already in here. Yep. In conflict of interest. That's already in here. Those are the four components. They said have to be included. Okay. So. Do we want to go. I think. Do we want to go above and beyond. Sure. Yeah. We want to go. It's not. Yeah. I mean, it back. I don't see any problem at all. With adding that in. In fact, I think it would be wise to. So let's table it because we agreed that we're going to end on time. That we're not going to extend. So that's okay. So let's table that. It's totally cool. And we'll just take it up at our next meeting. Is that good for everybody? Yeah. Yeah. I mean, if you want to, do you want to extend for five more minutes? Have a conversation. Ricky, any thoughts? I'm happy to table up till next meeting. Not even do whatever. Okay. Okay. Good. Um, you're good Hank. Let me ignore you. He's like, I'm leaving. Yeah. Okay. So we'll, we'll just, we'll just have a little more conversation about that. Okay. And, um, Yeah. So can we, we're concluding today's meeting. Every good. Hi. You're good. All the favor. Right. Okay. Okay. Gender and sexuality are different. For the record. Say that again, would you say as a gender and sexuality. So that is the end of our meeting. And we will.