 And we're recording, we're open and we're recording. So you're good morning, noting the presence of a quarrel, I am calling the governance, organization and legislation committee to order at what time is it at 932 pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 extended by chapter 22 and 107 of the acts of 2022 and extended by chapter two of the acts of 2023, this meeting will be conducted by a remote means members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so via zoom or by telephone. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real-time biotechnological means. And to make sure each counselor can hear and be heard I'm going to ask call the roll. Andy, Joe, how to key. Present. Lynn, Griezmer. Present. Jennifer, Tom. Present. And I'm here. Michelle Miller is on her way. And let's get started, I guess. What I have on the agenda is the Hazel app proclamation, but that has not been forwarded to me by the sponsors. We're going to be looking at town manager goals, rules of procedure, the charter review commission minutes and under the 48 hour rules resolution on the Israel-Palestinian conflict. I'm going to start with minutes and get those out of the way. Is there anyone who has any issues with either the July 19th, August 2nd, September 13th, or September 27th minutes as presented? Okay. Then I move. Just a question. Yes. I think you only have 927. The packet only have a 927 minutes in it. Oh, and Michelle's here if we could just quickly check that. Yeah. So can you hear? I can hear. That's right. Those are the only minutes. So I move that we accept the 927 minutes as presented. Is there a second? Second. Okay. See, all right. All right. Is there any disagreement? Do we have to do a roll call vote? Yes. Yeah. Haniki? Hi. Miller? Hi. Tawb? Yes. Griezmer? Hi. And I'm an I, so it's unanimous acceptance. I guess I... Jennifer, were you the second? Yes. Thank you. Sorry about that. That's okay. And I'd like to look to the committee about where you want to begin. Today's work. The Charter Review Commission Committee could be done, I think, fairly quickly. Michelle, we're taking your proclamation at the end because it's in the 48-hour roll. And Mandy is leaving at 11.10-ish and I am leaving exactly at 11.30. So Jennifer, if we're not done, I would love it if you could handle... Sure. Maybe we'll be done earlier. I have an absolute hard stop at 11.25. Okay. Well, then we're... Well, and that would eliminate a quorum. So if that happened, you know, that's that, I guess. I will probably be ending at 11.25. All right. And somebody, and I apologize for this. Can somebody update me on the town manager goals, Mandy? You were saying something at the opening of the meeting? I don't have any update. I was saying CRC had thought about potentially proposing some goals related to housing, the housing goals. CRC has not had time to do that. So there is no proposal or forward from CRC for that matter, depending on how long this lasts and CRC is timing. There may be something at some point, but that's a follow-up from a joint meeting we had with the Affordable Trust in terms of something CRC had said it might be able to do to address some of the joint issues. But we're not there yet. So there's nothing from CRC. Hey, Jennifer. Yeah. Can you just refresh my memory? Do we actually craft the goals in GOL or just set a framework? I don't remember. Yeah, I didn't think we actually did the goals. Go ahead, please. We actually craft them. And so, but Michelle has her hand up. So let me, I would like to say something as well. But Michelle, go first. No, Lynn. I'm not speaking to that. So please go on. Okay. I want to just, I want to strongly urge that unless we add an additional goal that we keep the goal structure the way it is so that we don't have, we don't try to massively change them this year, but that the words underneath each of the goals may have to be updated, edited, et cetera. So if we can at least have agreement with that, then I think we can bring it to the council again in our meeting Monday, just as a reminder, from your committee standpoint, from your work, things you have worked on, are there specific things? And please send those suggestions to whoever pat. And I would say Athena. Yeah. Okay. So I, if we have agreement that we're keeping the same structure and that the, unless we're adding a new goal, we're not changing goals, then we can work with the stuff underneath. That's my bottom line. Thank you. Yeah, I think that's a good idea. But I'd like to hear from others. Is there, is there something that hasn't been a goal that we want to set that isn't in one of the categories that are already on within his, within the town manager goals? Okay. I'm going to say there's a consensus that we do what you're suggesting, Lynn. Is there, am I wrong about that? Okay. So that, yeah, I, we will bring that up at Monday's meeting. And I think it's a good idea. Michelle. Two things. I'm looking, I don't know if I'm looking in the wrong place, but it looks like some of the items that are on our agenda and Pat, maybe you already addressed this, are not in Hazel Avenue. Yes, the Hazel Avenue. I didn't receive anything from the sponsors, so we are not dealing with it today. Is there something else? Just the, the town manager goals. I don't, I don't think I see them in here, but maybe. No, well, we're just talking about that now and accepting Lynn's suggestion. Okay. And then the other thing is I have a future agenda item that I wanted to just put on the radar potentially. So I know we're all having to leave a little early. So if that could just be something we discuss at the end, that'd be great. It depends on time, Mandy. Yeah, I would just want to second Michelle's item about the packet. It would be really helpful if a Word document of the manager goals is in the packet for whatever we're discussing it so that we can modify it and think about those updates, because I know there are some standard updates that need to happen every year. I didn't add anything because I was anticipating that we would have feedback and that Pat and I would be incorporating the feedback into the existing draft, but we don't have anything to incorporate into the existing draft right now. So I didn't anticipate the committee would do much with the goals because we didn't have any input yet. So that's what's happening. One of the things, Athena, would you and make sure that this is all right, can you send everybody the current goals? I think we can probably, but if you could send everybody on the committee so that they can be looking at them for our next meeting, that would be helpful. Yeah. And I think another reason I didn't want to send out the Word version, I can send the current goals and they're online on the tell manager page. That's true. But it gets really confusing. We're running into this with the rules. It gets really confusing when we have five different versions of a Word of Mark changes in a Word doc. So that's why we had asked, Pat and I had asked for changes come to us so that we could incorporate them all into one document. But I can post and send the current goals. Yeah. I'm not asking people to actually modify what you send, but to still send us changes, the two of us, the changes. And yes, we can go on. You don't have to do anything on the town website to look at those and refresh ourselves. Okay. Does that feel comfortable? Okay. All right. Then unless somebody else has a comment about town manager goals, I'm going to move on to the charter review. Does that feel comfortable? And we are looking at this to decide whether it's clear, consistent and actionable. I think the referral was to just approve the, I don't think the council is expecting it to come back. I think it was to approve this and make sure that the language is correct. And the, oh my gosh, the application form works. Thank you. That works for this committee. The community activity form, which I pulled up from this link that's in the bulletin board notice. It's not sufficient right now. Right. We have to add that. I didn't want to add it yet because it's not, we're not opening to applications until the new year. So, but I will do that before we post this. And this is just drafted based on other vacancy notices. I just put this together as a jumping off point. I'm sorry. I'm distracted. I have a neighbor who went to the hospital and I'm trying to respond. I know I'm not supposed to do that too. So I'll be right back. Okay. All right. Let me see. Is there anything in here that we need to address? It doesn't sound very much like there is. Michelle? Are we looking at this like from an editing standpoint? Okay. So I don't know if we need the up before the four. I think I can just say an every year ending in four. Where are you? In the little four comma. Yeah, first sentence. Oh, this is from the charter. So that comes right. I was just going to ask you, did that get pulled right from the charter? Yeah. So then I guess it stays. It's a quote. It sounded just like a little off to me. You can send that edit to the charter review commission. Right. We did that with bylaws. So sure. Mandy and then Lynn? Yeah, I don't have anything specific for the vacancy notice for the bulletin board other than obviously we'd add the link in. I'd like to talk about the community activity form when we get there after we're done with this and also the timing of posting this vacancy notice. Okay. So I would put either quotes on the part that comes from the charter or I would put it in italics so that we don't end up with the same question. Yeah. Yeah. That does it for me. Thanks. Yeah. Anything else? Not right now. Yeah. Okay. I think we're down to the CAFs. I don't see. I think Athena could just pull up the link from the bulletin board notice. Okay. Yeah. Athena, yeah. There you go. Can you make it a little larger? Mandy and then Lynn? So a couple things. On the second paragraph, we should remove Districting Advisory Board since it's not an option anymore because we only do that once every 10 years and in its place we should probably put the 2024 charter review committee. It's just the second paragraph of the explanation. The third paragraph, we do not keep the CAFs on file for three years anymore. We keep them on two per hour policy, the council policy. So that paragraph and then way down on the certification I think needs updated to two years. In the like required, please read the following statement says three years and both of them need to be two years because that's the new policy. And then obviously we need to add the charter review committee to the police select all that you are interested in. I was glad to see that the Districting Advisory Board is out because it would be a CAF for that after it was done the one time. So thank you, Athena. You're the one that updated for that. And then I wondered as someone who has to contact individuals based on these CAFs, we have a gender box. But I think a pronoun box would be helpful too because sometimes the gender box is not filled out or even if the gender box is filled out people don't always use pronouns that go with the gender being filled out. So I would request that we add a pronoun box to make it easier for those of us who actually contact candidates to make sure we're contacting them using the right pronouns if we do reference the pronouns instead of names. I would not make it required but I think it would be nice to add a box that way. People don't always fill out a pronoun box either. No, I know, but those that care enough and doesn't match might actually do that which would help us. Yeah. Mandy, go ahead, Lynn. Mandy, do you want to eliminate the gender box and have that be the pronoun box? That's what I was saying. We're supposed to be reporting gender applicants by gender in our reports under the policy so I would not eliminate that. Under the policy right now we're supposed to report the demographics of the applicants which includes gender. Okay. Could you go up to the top again? Before we move on from that should this be gender identity? Oh, yes. That makes sense. Maybe the best thing then is to have that one be gender identity and have the pronouns up with your basic information about name. I would too. I think that's good. I just want to make it a required answer. Right. So again, I want to go back up to the top. So in the bold letters we also need to take out district dean advisory board and then if we're going to put in the 2024 charter review committee do we want it first and that's fine if we do but then after planning board should there be a comma? Michelle? I don't I don't think we need a comma there but I'm not. I always use a comma in the same way as if the word was and zoning board of appeals but that's you know my own style maybe. That was my only comment. Okay. Michelle? I was just on the pronouns. I received feedback in AHRA about removing the word preferred from the statement that we read for public comment I think it is and the feedback was just that it wasn't like it shouldn't be looked at as like a preferred. It's like what it's I'm not very good at all this but I'm I just wanted to point that that word and where is this where are you referencing it? Oh I think someone said to maybe include preferred pronouns in the with the name and I thought that yeah I just pronouns is what I know is fine. Yeah I agree. That's what I thought we were doing. Okay perfect. Anything else and do people want the comma? Somebody told me it was generational doing it maybe. Go ahead push that top. No because I always I do put the comma but that was older people do that like me. No it's a legal thing if the Oxford comma makes it clearer and we've been using it on everything so the comma would go there but with the there's an or in that bold section but two paragraphs in we say and so we should make them agree whether it's I think it should be and and then it should be so in the title I think it should be and. Oh yeah it should be and because it's not or you know you can apply to planning but you can't apply to ZBA yeah so both of those and we'll add the Oxford comma before the end to satisfy elders on the committee. I don't think it's generational. I don't either anyway. You know what actually someone said was generational is certain spacing but that's another. Oh the double spacing after that's generation. Yeah I've never done that and I'm old and Mandy that you had your hand up was there something is there anything else you guys you're doing a great job. Mandy you wanted to mention you wanted to talk about the dates. Oh that's not related to the activity form but you know our referral is post by January 2nd I guess the question is do we want to have it posted before then it needs posted for 14 days before anyone can do anything or do we want it posted sort of on the second the day things are transferring over I thought we should just make a decision as to when it's most appropriate to be posted if we do it beforehand but I think the concern is the current councillors would get the applicant information if people applied now and then the new councillors might not have that information or it would need forwarded to them it'd be a little more record keeping I think than if we posted it sort of at the transition but I I don't know what is better give a longer time for people to apply or a shorter time. I think we just post it on the day that everything change changes. I'm not sure if I agree but I could go either way I because I've already got people talking to me about charter review committee and stuff like that so they may be the community may be ready to start putting uh application you know CAFs in about that so yeah Michelle. Yeah so the question is whether to do it whether to post it prior to the new council turning over or not I think I do think that makes sense what Mandy said about you know then having some folks getting it that really don't need it like myself for example or having to forward you know I would imagine Pat if we put this out I agree with you actually I imagine if we put this out it's going to start getting a lot of responses so do we want you know to begin that process now or prior to that turnover I don't know. Then it's got a very strong head shake going on after right because yeah it's my take Mandy Jo's comment first. I I I could go either way probably the record keeping would obviously be easier if we don't post it until the transition yet both GOL and CRC already do record keeping because we keep things on file for two years and so there's already record keeping that transfers over for finance ZBA and planning board about CAFs and acts you know and and putting them in in appropriate places so the new council has access to all of that so it's not like we can't do it it just adds more work for well I think it's GOL that's doing this although it hasn't fully been assigned yet it adds more work for someone to make sure all the record keeping is there but it's not that it can't be done because it's being done for the other three committees already all the time and yet I agree with Michelle that I think people are anxious and maybe wanting to the longer we wait maybe we lose some of that momentum especially if we post right after the holidays where people might not be paying as much attention yet in some sense it doesn't make sense to hold it out open for four months when no one when we know we're not doing anything with it for those four months it just puts people sort of in a waiting pattern that's true Lynn and then Jennifer we're actually go ahead so let me explain further why I feel that we should just post it on the on the 2nd of January you're going to have a new council you're going to have to get through committee assignments at that point you're going to have new counselors because we know there's going to be some new counselors I that first month is it's basically people trying to find their way and the I think posting it on the 2nd is fine no committee is going to be dealing with it for at least the first month of the council or at least the first maybe three weeks of the council so I that's one reason why I just started on the 2nd have your 14 days I also do not agree with posting things over holiday periods I think people are you know very critical of that and they should be and but we do also need to be sensitive to the fact that a lot of faculty members are not around from the you know end of the hot the beginning of the holidays till the end of January so I think 14 days is a minimal posting on this one too Jennifer yeah I mean I agree with Lynn I also hear I think people get frustrated if they submit a form and they don't hear back for a long time because I have residents say you know nobody's gotten back to me so I think we don't need to invite you know make it longer when we know they're not going to hear back for increase that period that they're not hearing from us and being interviewed Mandy and then Michelle I was going to say something similar except that if we post on the 2nd there is no one defaulting person to actually respond to any CAFs that are submitted for things like oh we received it and here's the next steps and here's when we guess they will be and so we would need to I think sadly assign Athena that role because we can't even say the president we don't know who any of that would be whereas if we post earlier there is someone at least until January that does that and so might the initial swell of potential applicants is at least taken care of and then there's not when you post on the 2nd I suspect the first week or so we'll receive a lot but there's no one in the council set to do anything with them which is also problematic from that no one might hear back no one knows who's on the committee who who is the point person if there's any questions or even a timing of that not that we know a timing now so I think we need to deal with that if we're going to post in January we need to have a plan in place for respond for who will respond to submitted CAFs and that would be an issue either case that would be an issue in either case if it's posted earlier and then application come in January then there wouldn't be an assigned person to respond until the council's reorganized so there if it's posted earlier there would be like this transitional period where nobody's responding thank you Athena Michelle new things the first is I along that lines I was wondering if there was an automatic message that went back when people submit CAFs or that if we could create and not to create more work but if there was a message that could automatically be returned to the person who has submitted the CAF that would just give some of that basic information like you know you should hear with us with from somebody within X amount of time or whatever the sort of parameters are there I always find that helpful when I submit something to like know there's some feedback that came back to me and then the other question I have is do so I'm just imagining myself I'm not going to be on council if I were to see CAFs now and also be someone that was going to apply to the charter is there any conflict of interest there like if only counselors review the CAFs and they're not made public only the demographics are made public I feel a little bit uneasy about that like knowing who else would be in the pool you know potentially so that's another consideration on timing Athena and then Lynn there is after you submit you bring you come to a page that says thank you for submitting if you check the box that that will send you an email of a copy of what you've submitted then you'll get that in your email but I don't believe it's been a while since I dealt with the form center I don't believe that we can edit what you any kind of the thank you for submitting page I think that's kind of an automatically generated thing or as either I remember this coming up in when when there were changes to the CAF early on and I believe Brianna's advice was that it's it's sort of a boxed thing that either we can't change or it applies to too many things that if we make it more specific then it doesn't make sense in other situations so I think it's that's why it's important for someone to be getting back to people who submit rather than it being an unautomated thing Lynn as of January 2nd you will have a president and a vice president of the council that's what the meeting on January 2nd is about so it doesn't all fall to Athena it it would just need assigned to the president or vice president to do those responses because right now the policy assigns it to the committee chair that is holding the interviews right seems like we should leave it alone not that however Athena Lynn are you suggesting I'm sorry I keep forgetting to raise my hand Lynn are you suggesting that this come back to the council as a assignment for GL at some point I um I am I I guess I thought we'd already settled that if we didn't it does need to come back to GL as an assignment I don't think the council has voted to make GL the the interview committee and the council the new council may not want that they may want to do the interviews themselves for the whole council again a reason to wait until the second that was also a good reason why we and I think made Joe you suggested this we basically backed up the whole calendar by three months to give the council an opportunity to get their feet on the ground mandate so it sounds like an agenda item for January 2nd would be assignment of you know or or waving or revising or whatever the policy is for who responds to these CAFs until said whatever is and and figure out the wording for it right but also a motion to refer the the 2024 CAFs again I'm not sure what the wording is to be to um you know or to assign GL or pick a committee the responsibility of applying the town council policy on making recommendations for the 2024 charter review committee um some language like that but that those two items should be on a motion sheet and an agenda for January 2nd what was the first thing the first thing would be to assign but it depends the wording would depend on whether the council refers the the 2024 committee to a committee so waive the policy or assign is that what you said well well so so first motion would be to assign to a committee the doing the policy to make recommendations to the council um or you're waiving the policy because the council's deciding to do it but then if the policy if the council decides to send the recommendation off to I'm just going to assume GL for now to to do the interviews and make a recommendation to the council on who to appoint between the time there need to be a motion to assign the responsibility of responding to CAFs to the president or vice president until such time as GL has a president a chair I mean but if the council doesn't does decides to keep the recommend I mean there wouldn't be a recommendation then keep the the policy and execute sort of portions of the policy itself then the the president presumably would default to being the person who responds and so you wouldn't need that motion um because the policy says the chair of the committee which would be the president so it'd be like these two potential motions depending on what happens with who's doing the recommending then yeah um since the president actually convenes each of the committees of when they're when they hold their election that is also the case but I just want to point out it is very possible well in fact district five has one of the finance committee members and that at this point at least is an uncontested race unless there's a huge right in uh and so there's going to be use needs need for these CAFs for not just this but for finance committee as well what would you folks like to do Mandy I mean it sounds like we don't we could make a motion ourselves but I think depending on I think it's the the referral to GL allows us to decide when to post it as long as it's posted by January 2nd and so if you want a motion I think the motion would be to post the bulletin board notice on January 2nd 2024 it sounds like that's where we're leaning so that's the motion I make but I'm not sure we need a motion necessarily it's just the referral was to post by and now that we've reviewed the vacancy notice I believe Pat until that day you have the authority to to essentially ask Athena to post on any particular day you want without and from the committee finally he's posted on January 2nd Ms. O'Keefe is the second the second's not a holiday right uh it's not usually a holiday but it depends on whether the first is the first is a Monday so the second is not okay okay that's I think everybody that means we're not being sworn in the new counselors aren't being sworn in until they're being sworn in no they're being sworn in on the second Mandy Jo the oh no that is true we get sworn in we'd get sworn in on the second but the first regular meeting would still be the seventh but yeah no with the first Tuesday Monday eight yeah the eight sorry yeah we like it when you make even small mistakes dear hey no one's perfect anything else on this subject I think we've gotten where we need to get on it all right well what we can do now is to start looking at the rules of procedure or we could take the hummus resolution up first given that rules and procedure can I think the goal is to have if it is to have the resolution come to the council on Monday so we need to make sure it gets done yeah and since there are people yeah let's let's bring that up and and deal with that you know I think I do have a copy did you want me to say something is that right yes I'm sorry I'm I'm this resolution this proclamation it just throws my head into a lot of places so I'm I apologize Michelle yes I'd like you to introduce it sure and I think that what you just said that's a perfect segue I think that's fair and so I just what I wanted to say was just to share the process by which this proclamation comes to be and I heard from a community member over the weekend who asked that we consider as a council making some sort of statement and I recognized immediately while I'm not an expert in any of this that this was a sensitive matter that needed to be handled sensitively so I took the next 24 hours or so to speak to different members of the community representing different groups and people who had understandings on sort of all sides of this matter my focus here was to not get into the politics of the conflict but to clearly clearly focus on the attack itself that occurred and so after pulling together lots of different statements from different folks I put this together and this is where it stands now thank you Michelle I appreciate the process that you went through Mandy I do too so so thank you Michelle for for speaking to everyone and all a couple of questions and then this is clarity consistency and actionability so a couple of modifications the modifications are easy in some sense the after each whereas needs to be the semicolon and which it looks like Athena already added yay thank you except for the last whereas gets the period we would need to add the sponsors I don't know whether there's anyone other than Michelle but the sponsors go at the top and then my biggest question relates to two things proclamation sounds so strange in this sense right like we're not what proclaim tends to bring feelings of happiness and celebration in my mind and that's not really what we're doing here so I wonder if we would if Michelle would be willing to change it to resolution so it's a be it resolved instead of proclaiming sort of things and with that I read the second whereas the one that says we express our unequivocal condemnation um as much more of a sort of ending be it resolved sort of phrasing instead of a whereas phrasing that that could be potentially moved down into and combined with the now therefore so it would read something like now therefore be it resolved we the Amherst town council express our unequivocal the rest of that sentence and join our hearts and minds with others working towards something like that as to one more broader be it resolved but that was just my initial thoughts on reading it but I do want to thank Michelle for for bringing this forward those sound like really great suggestions to me that I agree with and I was wondering what I I'm just thinking back to like the George Floyd do we do we don't ever just say statement in the wake of or something right so it's always either the proclamation or resolution in this case okay yeah then that makes I think I'm seeing shaking heads so I like those two suggestions thank you Jennifer um yeah so Michelle I want to ask so you received input from a broad swath of the community well it was you know 48 hours so right no but I like the interfaith council it wasn't yeah so I received like I um spoke with Rabbi DeVora Jacobson um she sent me several statements she's a member of the JCA but also a Rabbi in Northampton um and I spoke with different community members I also tried to take in various different statements that I saw coming out um but I would not say that I spoke with like a like I didn't have time to speak with you know many I think I spoke with probably half a dozen people that I think have some understanding of uh this matter from their organizational uh work so I don't know if that answers your question Jen I don't know I guess um no so I really appreciate your doing I this is a lot to take on um so I'm just gonna say that I would we have I wouldn't I I don't I concern that the council gets spends a lot of time on a big discussion of Middle East policy and we don't really have time for that so that does anybody have any feelings about that um I don't have feelings about council time being spent on this um in the sense that if if there is that much um that the council needs to question or share or anything else then why this is kind of an important issue on multiple levels I don't know anybody else and it's just not simple it's not right I I think GOL ought to maybe focus on clarity consistency and actionability and then and then when it comes to the council there can be a discussion on whether or not the council so I did have that question also because some of my concern yeah we shouldn't weigh in on substance no no I mean yeah what Mandy did was not weigh in on substance but move things to make sections of it stronger and clearer anything else Jennifer no okay Lynn um I want to mention that as I did actually have an interaction with the key person that I have worked with in the Interfaith Council to ask whether they were going to be doing anything and he indicated that they were not he personally was going to be you know demonstrating for peace but in the email he pointed out the complexity of the situation and um from all the various perspectives and so what I'm hoping is that the resolution goes to the council that if the council feels that they can vote on it they vote on it and we not use it as a time to debate Middle East politics because I think that there is that we are not Congress we are not somebody that's going to offer financial support or anything else so I and I also did talk with Michelle starting God I can't remember if it was yesterday or Monday but and knew that she was going to be working on this and we discussed both the intricacies of the issue of the various positions people could take and so I I just want to thank Michelle for taking the time to consult with people I also did share it again with somebody um I know who had struggled yet just yesterday to write a similar statement for an organization they are involved in and confirmed she did read it and um you know felt that we kind of struck the middle ground if you will in in striking the middle ground uh we're never going to please everybody and some people would like us to be stand very strong on one side or the other of this issue or somewhere else and it is a um a very difficult issue so um again I I think Michelle did a lot of work consulting with the people she did I've tried to do a little bit of the same um in terms of this so um that's where we are thank you Michelle yeah I just wanted to say that I I just wanted to share that I do feel a little bit vulnerable um like being a sole sponsor on this um and I'm willing you know do that um but if anybody else felt like uh they would like to also sponsor it that would be great too but if not I'm fine um just wanted to express that sense of vulnerability I'm feeling Jennifer um yeah I wanted to thank Lynn really um express better than I did what I guess um I was trying to say you know just to be aware that you know we you know I don't know what the conversation will be in the council um so Michelle let me think about um joining you on this I would like to also think about that as well Mandik and if if Michelle is willing I am happy to join because of how Michelle has has you know taken on and and tried to lay that middle ground and I would like to make a unanimous yeah just yeah put me on it as well now just so a difficult piece of work please please add me as well thank you and I I will point out that um Anna is in the audience and I don't want to put Anna or Pat on the spot here but I wanted to say that Anna um was very interested in this and um and uh kind of clued into everything that was going on um so I just wanted to let Anna in in a minute but I did want to sponsor this as well so I don't think that got heard it is it's tricky it's it's deeply there's part of me that's ripped apart by what's happening uh and I don't know but yes I can do that and Anna can Athena can you bring Anna in so she can speak for herself not that she usually has difficulty with that I know I'm usually so quiet hi everybody um no I think it seems like there's a lot of folks who are really willing and able to support this so I'm happy to um take a step back and um wait until it comes to the council level that's fine you can add add Anna as well I think that's okay I I mean I I really appreciate that I I trust all y'all so that's that's okay thank you thank you Anna so are we done with the edits I think that we are I mean anything I have to say would affect substance so I'm not gonna do that then I move that we recommend to the council no I I move that this be declared clear consistent and actionable is that the right motion Athena and Mandy Joe yeah second okay I'm gonna call a roll call call vote as I see you Ms. Miller hi Ms. Tom yes Ms. Griezmer yes Ms. Hanna key hi and I'm an I I just wish we didn't have to do these kinds of things because it wasn't happening yeah thank you Pat for taking it under the 48 hours yeah yeah and thank you Michelle for all you did I'm not easy okay um let me see it's 1026 and it looks like we're ready to move on to the rules of procedure and in the agenda I I thought and I that I had said certain sections when I sent the agenda but maybe I didn't you did and I well the reason I'm asking is we can pick up where we were but I would like to go back to the public comment I think it's five five or six I always get those mixed up basically I would like us to relook at we we uh short we wanted to shorten public comment it was a unanimous decision to do 35 minutes we had tons of feedback and we changed it to two hours and I think that was a panic reaction and I do not I do not want to sit if through two hours of public comment unless it's really there I don't want it to be a strategy or anything else so I really would like to simply go back the way the rule read originally which wasn't to put a time limit on it in any direction because it really does need to be a decision in the moment by the whoever's chairing the meeting so that's that was I don't I'm assuming we can talk about it but it's part of the rules of procedure I don't know but it's one I didn't want to to forget yeah the length of public comment periods once it has reached 120 minutes yeah and I don't remember exactly what it said originally so I I included more because I included the entire rules because there was some changes that the committee didn't agree on before that yeah so but we can jump there we're getting nauseous so can you go back to the top of this section because there's other red lines I I feel like we've spent this has spanned so much time that before we vote the whole thing we may be we should do a complete review oh yeah I'm just yeah but right now I'd like to focus on uh 5.1c um and I uh I mean I I don't mandate go ahead so um I would be okay with removing the 120 as sort of an automatic thing I think is sort of how it's written here but maybe adding in something after a certain minimum length of time where the council that after a certain amount of time I don't know what it would be worded like but that the council may vote to end public comment after 30 minutes upon you know pick 30 minutes or an hour or something upon motion so let me let me explain why I'm thinking something like this I I would like to make sure our rules allow us to vote to end public comment in extreme circumstances so there was recently a California public meeting of their I don't know whether it was council or the sort of commissioners or something where it appeared that an AI bot or someone with a bot had multiple attendees virtually and when they opened up public comment like 12 or 13 of them raised their hand all at once and every single one of them was vitriol um misogynistic anti-semitic anti-semitic racist you name it anti trans and there's really no way to stop that for each of the three minutes unless again thinking about our most recent SJC case and all where we're one of the things these rules can try and do is protect the council from claims of open meeting law violations and First Amendment violations so I think a motion something in the rules that says you know after a certain length of time or at some point in time the council may vote by ex-vote it doesn't even need to be a majority we could make a you know super majority to end public comment might protect us from claims of of bias or even just from sitting through two hours of AI bots that have all raised their hand and and are spewing things like this but are claiming to be immersed residents because you can program an AI bot to say almost anything you want including I live at X with a name we haven't faced any of it yet hopefully we never will but I I re I want the rules to protect the council from acts like that and give the council ways to address that and move on to business if something like that happens Jennifer um well I raised my hand before that that comment I mean so responding to Mandy could something literally be put in about an AI bot that in that case um because I have how that's written I don't have any um issue with it I think we rarely go to an hour and a half um it's two hours that's two hours um I mean do we I guess I don't really have any concern about the way it is now that that um people are allowed to comment for up to three minutes I do like that at the council the presiding officers discretion I do prefer that we say we increase that to two minutes from one but you know I don't see why we really couldn't leave it the way it is you know and I mean if it goes if it's I just think it's we're making a rule for the the time I've been on the council I haven't if there's extensive public comment it's because it's an issue that people are really concerned about so it just seems to me the way we have it now is working thank you Jennifer um I want to say that um the ruling the Southboro ruling talked about not being able to stop someone from criticizing critiquing the select board and things like that I don't believe if we had seven or eight or whatever vitriolic where there were racist sexist transphobic statements being made that we would have to not cut those off I I I find that I don't know I mean because Southboro really was talking about criticisms of the of the basically criticisms of any council member or policy or things like that I I don't know right because if you what we're talking about here is hate speech you don't have to learn yeah or do you I don't know I think there's fears of that but yeah bandit you might have to if it's addressed towards the council as the council is quote racist or the council is anti trans or the council is that and you can't stop it or if it's addressed towards any one person that the council has authority over or the actions of the council or anything like that right and there was no to address Jennifer's thing of well can we write in something about AI bots they're just suspecting it was someone running AI bots because of how the hands went up all at the same time not staggered or anything but there's no guarantee with how well AI is and voice recognition is now that you'd even be able to detect it so I I don't know the with the Southboro and the parameters as I said I don't know it it sounds like we're saying we basically if we allow public speech during a public speech part of the meaning we have to let someone go on for three minutes unless we have parameters around which you know that it must relate to council business on the agenda or this or that but even that if someone really wants to can be done so that's all I'm I'm I'm thinking about right now is how do we give the council the best opportunity if something like that happens to be able to get control of the meeting again Michelle I think you just answer my question Mandy so what C is trying to do is deal with a circumstance like that and I think Jennifer what I'm hearing you say is that hasn't been any kind of theme that we've seen so we don't necessarily need to add a limitation is that accurate Jennifer is that what you were yeah I hate to put to limit public comment or put anything in an extreme because something like that might happen because I think it could be once it's there it could be used to limit public comment yeah I think I don't I would be fine eliminating C I understand where Mandy's coming from but I think as it is now I think we're fine without it personally so that's where I would lean yeah and for me I'm still I agree with that but I also feel like why do we have any time period there because it it just like you know Mandy is projecting something that could happen could happen our next meeting and wants to condense the possibility you know I just we have never gone two hours for public comment so why does it have to be there it really has always been a decision and when we have more than one public comment period because we have a specific item that we want the public to count on that's an additional does it add into the 120 or is that already another 120 it just feels like so I would like to see no time limit there and the decision be made by the presiding officer at each meeting for the length of time of public comment Jennifer I agree can we get that's all I want to say Lynn yeah so you want to completely strike C and and I understand okay and I'm I'm not I don't think I'm necessarily opposed but you just said something else and that is that the length of time be determined by the presiding officer essentially implying that the presiding officer can open public comment and say we're going to have public comment for the next 30 minutes I'm not saying that okay I just wanted to check what you were saying no I'm saying that you look at um what I mean and I'll get right to you Athena I'm sorry but what I mean is if there are three people who've raised their hand for public comment that's nine minutes 15 minutes if you know with shuffling around if 25 people raise their hands I still don't think it reaches 120 minutes if but you or the presiding officer whoever that might be makes a decision whether it's going to be three minutes or two minutes that's a decision you make so I feel like the decision I think you can judge how long it might take but I are you going to time the 120 minutes or I don't know I just don't think it's necessary so all I'm saying is I don't think there has to be anything in there about the presiding officer can determine the length of time of public comment that's actually you know I don't know anyway Athena and then Michelle and I'll come back to you Lynn if that's if I heard you yeah I think to Mandy's point the the length of time is the protection the council has and the presiding officer has to manage the meeting so my suggestion would be to take this out and then the presiding officer may reduce the time allowed per person and may limit the time the public comment period to a certain time so rather than based on the number of people who wish wish to speak the presiding officer might say you know we'll take public comment for an hour and this would that would empower the presiding officer to you know put a limit there um based on the number of people who wish to speak or based on the number of items on the agenda and and things that need to get done or whatever that's an interesting solution um Michelle I I so can the council could always somebody a counselor could always move right to extend public comment there's nothing that that does not allow that to occur right so if I was if I saw that there were 30 people left and they haven't had a chance to speak and the presiding officer wants to move on I could I move to have the public comment period extended and then it would be the council's decision at that point right right now there's no limit on the public comment period so the council doesn't decide to extend it this is the part that extends if there were a limit this is the part that would allow the council to extend the limit so you could keep this in and the council could decide to extend it or but it doesn't give the council an opportunity to to reduce it and it doesn't empower the presiding officer to reduce it the the length of the entire public comment period not just the length of each individual right right Mandy let me ask a similar question because I'd like to hear Athena's thoughts on this if we eliminate C at completely at any point in time can a counselor after while there are still public commenters raising their hand could a counselor make a motion to end the public comment period if we don't have anything in the rules that allow them to you know so after five minutes after 30 minutes after 120 or do we really need something in the rules to allow the council to vote to end the public comment period or is that just always implied by Robert's rules I think um I think making that decision ahead of time is really important because counselors can look through the list of people who have their hand raised they can see who's in the audience who might be waiting to speak and that and so a vote a council vote to extend or to limit at a certain point could be could be interpreted as what's the word I'm looking for right the tail of somebody's voice or something yeah like right discriminatory for some based on you know I know that these people all want to say this or that and I don't want to hear it so I'm going to move to right so I think it yeah I think I think making that decision ahead of time rather than allowing the council I don't think that it would it's not a privileged motion so there's not anything in the rules that would allow a motion to end in the first place so I think there needs to be some empowerment of someone to limit at the beginning that's what I would advise Jennifer and then I want to ask a question so as it is now the presiding officer could say um because I think it's happened before you know uh I'm going to you know in whatever 30 seconds or something raise your hand if you want to speak and I'm not we're not going to allow anyone else in the queue after that so that and then we can already do that correct so here's here's the rules about who's signed up so people sign up we take the chair takes the people signed up first and then here's the addition the present that isn't in the current rules the the presiding officer may recognize people not on the register if it's not exceeded 30 minutes but that's not an existing rule see I think you should be able to raise your hand and get in the queue after people start speaking so I would not be in favor of saying if you're you know you you can't get in the queue after the first person speaks but if if public comment's been going on for an hour or whatever it's been extensive and the presiding officer says okay I am now going to say if you're not going to give you 10 seconds or whatever to raise your hand and after that we're not going to take we're only going to take people that are in the queue now then would we not and that can happen so I don't think we have to have the 120 minutes yeah is there anything you want to add Jennifer no okay what I was sitting here thinking is what if in terms of consistency and if we had on the agenda that public comment will happen from 640 640 to 740 at every council meeting but that it could be so there was a known time period I'm just making up that period and then it also could be unless it's extended by a vote of the council something like that because we it generally is at the beginning of the meeting not absolutely always but and we'd have to remain consistent to that so I'm not sure as someone who's not juggling the town council agenda I'm not sure whether that would work Jennifer I would just be concerned if it's an issue you know that people are really that there may sometimes be more than an hour I mean I think it's we usually don't but when it is it's because it's something people really what I'm saying is that then you could say this is I'm seeing there are a lot of people here this is a contentious issue or a complex issue so I move that we extend the public comment period and then it could be voted on by the council is that your two suggestions are a little bit conflicting so you're saying that either the either the president puts or the chair puts a specific time period on the agenda because that's at the discretion of the chair or the council vote to extend but right now there's not a provision on the rules to to limit the entire public comment period in the first place so so a vote right so it doesn't I think those things I'm just trying to find a solution I I do not want to set a time I don't want to say that we have a 30 minute period or 35 million we did that it was a disaster and the critique was we all deserve to hear all five of us Michelle I mean one other suggestion is just changing the language a bit so that it says length of public comment once a public comment period has reached 120 minutes the council shall move to extend by majority vote or something instead of saying shall end the public comment period I mean it's extended by it's yeah unless I just I wonder if like the concern from the public will be that we're ending it after a certain period of time therefore limiting their capacity their ability but we have that right we do have that right right the time frame and just extend do you mean yeah yeah I I know it's it's kind of a subtle subtle subtlety but of all the things that we're rumbling around with here I would rather leave it the way it is and even though I would like to see it change anything else oh that's okay Pat no I I wonder if we could just I mean so I think most of us have or at least a couple of us have said we would like to see see three of us have said we'd like to see see removed or would be more comfortable with it removed so I think that unless there are folks who want it really strongly feel that it should be back in there then I don't think I think removing it seems appropriate Lynn yeah I I'm I have no problem removing it for now but I'd like to copy it and preserve the wording in a comment off to the side so that because if we come back to it I'd like to at least have it be there yeah that makes sense anybody else manding I just want to clarify that with this removal the committee is going to end up recommending that the council have no way of ending a public comment period as long as there are hands still raised that were raised at the beginning of the public comment period no matter no matter how long it's gone is that what the committee is recommending if it be four hours if it be three hours if it be a hundred AI AI bots because I can tell you the California group didn't have a problem until they had a problem right like that's that's how this happens um you don't you don't experience it till you do and you never know when it's coming but um if that what the committee is is is going to recommend that there be no safeguard against any of it because there's no way to make that motion at any point in time Lynn but I think Mandy Joe the reason I didn't want to just wipe it out without having a record of it is I think we need to think about that and because the other piece that I in hearing this conversation I want to make sure I heard it because basically when people come into the room physically they sign up do we accept additional people signing up after we start public comment if they're in the room we do yeah okay someone may come later someone may come later the same thing is true if they're on zoom so whichever way we do it we need to do it consistently on zoom because I mean as you all know we watch the zoom hands carefully and after three people that have raised their hand in the beginning comment then all of a sudden someone pops up sometimes that person wasn't in the room but a lot of times they were in the room to begin with and now they just decide they want to make public comment and that can keep going um but I was hearing people suggest that if you didn't raise your hand in the beginning on zoom then you wouldn't be recognized and I think that's counter to what we do if you're there in person yeah I don't yeah Jennifer yeah I think you should be able to raise your hand after public comment like I couldn't support three I mean I mean I know that there's an issue of going but if somebody gets up and says the sky is green you should be able to raise your hand and say no it's blue okay well so what you're saying with that example is the public can debate each other during no no but you can just you can that's what that's what that is yeah well I think they can't yeah I mean you're living you're saying how many if if you're sitting in the audience and a comment is made and you that yes I think you should be able to and I mean what we're saying is you're limiting how many times people can speak so you're not going to have a but I think you should be able or if and particularly since people can't see who's there I mean maybe you think a comment's going to be raised and you don't raise your hand and then it's not I mean I I think you should absolutely be able to raise your hand after public comment has started Mandy I guess I disagree um I think we need some controls over things like this I don't I I don't think it's appropriate for our public comment period to turn into a debate between residents number one number two item three puts you know allows people to do so as long as we haven't exceeded a certain amount of time right it's not a strict you can't it's and it's more clear than the current number three which is if time allows which is very unclear and very subjective so I think we need something more clear than if time allows which is what our current rule is um and and I guess I I believe that if you intend to make public comment you come to the meeting intending to make public comment and you should know ahead of time and it if you want to make sure something is said during public comment you shouldn't rely on others um and wait to see if it was made by someone else you can always lower your hand if someone has made it but you know item B the the time of three minutes versus two or right now one minute is made based on the number of hands that are raised when the presiding officer calls for it if we then you know if if people if only three if we have 50 people in the audience and three people raised their hand during that 30 seconds that Lynn says you know how many right now if you want to make public comment raise your hand and three people whether they're in the person in in person or not raise their hand and then Lynn says okay three minutes and then once the three minutes is declared another 30 people raise their hand that defeats the purpose of item B trying to figure out how much time someone has um so I I think we need D three in some sort of wording 30 minutes might not be the right time to say to essentially define time allows maybe it's a different number um but I I think we need something in D three to clarify the current D three I'm feeling sorry that I ever brought this up uh and we maybe should go back to what we deleted about the 120 minutes but I want to hear from Athena before I hear from you Jennifer you had your hand raised Athena was thinking about um I was thinking about an open meeting of the residents the Charter's pretty clear that an open meeting of the residents has to be on the request of 200 residents um to to allow space for extensive public comments on a particular issue um I think the council you know maybe there's something about adding move to call a special meeting um to hear additional comments I'm not sure I was I was thinking about that but I I looked up the Charter provision and and it's 200 so I I don't know if that works in this sense but um I wonder if if moving moving something to a special meeting might um Athena remember it also says or we can call a special meeting right the council can call a special meeting I um and actually I prefer the way the Charter is written on that because um the only time we did call a special meeting was 132 North Hampton Road yeah you're talking about um an open meeting of the residents I was I was saying that that the Charter's clear on that but I was thinking um you know if we have if there is a limit if the if the committee decides to recommend a limit that perhaps allowing counselors to make a motion to hear additional comments on a particular topic in this section to hear additional I'm not sure that was I I'm go ahead Lynn I I would just say that there's a lot of people who would love to have the council call a special meeting on topics that frankly are not that are not part of the purview of the council and what I want to make sure is we don't open that door for misuse Jennifer thank you um yeah I just wanted to return to um I feel very strongly that people should be able to raise their hand after public comment has begun even if if somebody gets home you know joins the meeting five or ten minutes late they've been at work that they should be able to get into the queue and not say you missed your chance now I agree with that Michelle yeah I wanted to support that as well for a variety of reasons I think it's important that um if we're still in that public comment period that people should be able to add themselves to the list what a hell of a topic hey um I am honestly am comfortable moving back to the 120 I don't like it but I feel like this opens so many cans of worms and as much as I like worms it just feels a bit overwhelming Jennifer yeah I prefer if we're going to have a number the 120 to the 30 yeah Michelle yeah so clarifying pat you're saying add the 120 back but then are we see back the way it was okay and then would that mean we would be removing d3 oh god I don't want to remove that interesting how are they yeah how do we see them being connected non-residents and any person not on the register prior to the first public comment will be recognized to speak at the discretion of the presiding officer and maybe we can you know I don't want to you know and only if public comment had not already exceeded 30 minutes uh that I feel like we should take that part out I I agree but I think we should just take it out yeah maybe we can say at the discretion of the presiding officer period period yeah and only take out the time yeah is everybody okay with that no but then we're saying that you can't raise your hand unless the presiding officer after it's begun unless the presiding officer says you can but you can raise your hand they'll be recognized at the discretion of the presiding officer and generally speaking they are recognized yeah but you're saying now that if you raise it's not a given that if you raise your hand so if you're late to the meeting and you may not be able to raise your hand unless the presiding officer says that you can it gets now it's saying you can't the default is you can't unless the presiding officer says you can this is prior to the first public comment right that's what I have a problem if public comment has begun and you I don't think that I don't read this is speaking to if public comment has begun I read this as to the first public comment does that mean the first person speaking or yeah oh I thought it meant like the first public comment period somehow okay all right so then yeah we should think about that no it it it says that first so the way I read it and yes the rule will require trust in a presiding officer right and and we just have to accept that some rules that that's what a presiding officer sometimes manages is some of that trust right the way I interpret this is you know going back to the length of individual public comment up to three minutes the presiding officer says okay everyone who wants to make public comment raise your hand and then they wait and they see how many hands are raised and then they make a determination as to how much length of time again with trust three minutes two minutes as this one would be one minute right now in in our current rules based on that number of hands and the length of time you know if we've got 10 hands three minutes if we've got 30 hands maybe it's one minute or two minutes right and then how D would operate would be they've set that time based on who claimed who said they wanted to speak ahead of time and now we're trusting the the the presiding officer to then say you know we have 20 people ready to speak we're going to allow two minutes a person and then suddenly once public comment starts another 20 people come in the presiding officer can say you know what we're not going to accept anyone else or we're only going to accept residents that didn't have their hand raised ahead of time for that two minutes or everyone else who raised their hands afterward gets one minute just that trust of trying to manage the meeting because our meeting is not just public comment it's also a business meeting and we have to trust our presiding officer to manage those together and that's what I see D three as doing giving that authority and trust to the providing presiding officer who as Jennifer has right rightfully said most of the time is going to recognize everyone because we have four people speaking we don't I meant what for half a second mandate to tell you it's 1107 thank you I know and I don't want to necessarily continue this to make a final decision on this without all of us being present Jennifer yeah I couldn't vote for this because it what it says is you can't raise your hand after public comment has begun unless the presiding officer says that you can versus and you could raise your hand but the presiding officer at some point in the meeting the presiding officer can say okay you know I'm going to give everyone I remember Lynn doing this once she said I'm going to give everyone a certain amount of time to raise your hands and then I'm not going to allow anyone else to get in the queue that that is the exception here it's saying once public comment the first person is given public comment you cannot raise your hand unless the presiding officer says that you can and I'd rather it be the other way around that you can but the presiding officer has the discretion to give everybody you know a 10 second raise your hand now it says they won't be recognized they'll only be recognized to speak at the discretion not that they can't raise their hand well that's I guess kind of the same thing if you're not if you're not if you haven't gotten in the queue before the first public comment you do not have to be recognized that that's the rule unless that there's an exception made I'm not laughing you Jennifer I'm laughing at all of us and the difficulty of this honestly Michelle I'm sort of with Pat and I think that if what we're trying to do is have some ability to manage a business meeting that's not a public hearing that's you know specific for for public comment I would rather I would like to put the 120 back in and rather anybody raise their hand anytime during the public comment period period I agree with that um and and that I think will solve both both of these these issues because I do think that sometimes it takes people a little bit maybe they hear something that another public commenter says and I get the point about debate but I think sometimes it's just like people come late whatever if there's a public comment period raise your hand whenever you want but if we reach that 120 then we deal with you know we deal with that at that time basically that would be my preference listening to that preference I want to reduce the 120 to an hour to 60 minutes with the ability to extend that the discretion you know I don't know this is insane it made me really we really this has never come forward as a major issue during actual meetings you know because we look we look to presiding officer to make a decision we don't like the decision that we they make we can say something I don't know I guess Jennifer I think it hasn't really come up because we don't usually have public comment that extends beyond an hour but I think well then I like the 120 minutes if it happens I just I think we're kind of trying to find um what's the word you know a cure for a disease that hasn't presented itself so why which is why don't we just put it back the way it was and not have 120 or anything else I've always been okay with that well then let's let's just oh god uh Michelle I'll just try to use your kindly ways to fix I know I think that Mandy is thinking about in particular Mandy is thinking about potential scenarios as we develop as a a council that could occur in our you know day and age and so I think that there's putting in the 120 minutes this can always be changed we can always bring this back you know what I mean if we see but I think it it sort of resolves the possibility that it could extend beyond it could just be so out of you know bounds that we can't get anything done and it would then force us to have to consider another way to have the public be heard on whatever that particular matter is um which we could do you know so I don't yeah that's I when do you have to leave Mandy right now maybe we're not ready for ourselves if I may I would be fine with adding in that that length of total public comment back in and deleting three D three completely it's just D three is so not clear that if we leave it in I want something clearer but if we add in the total length then I would be fine I think I I don't think then deleting D three is problematic deleting it completely not just the proposed new language but but keeping the deletion of D three um right do we have consensus here we're adding back I gotta go we're adding back in the 120 and taking out D three I'm good with that all right Michelle Lynn Mandy I'm gonna say that we did it by consensus get the thing back we have 12 minutes until Ms. Griezmer needs to leave and I need to go now so I thank you for your work Mandy hi oh god uh Pat you didn't do public comment oh I okay so um I don't think Anna is even here there's nobody there I'm gonna call on the public now to have and give them an opportunity to speak for the next 120 minutes if you would like to speak for more than three minutes please raise your hand and since there's no one in the audience and hopefully I'm ending public comment now at 11 14 oh god that'll probably be used against me in the re-election campaign counselor has too much of a sense of humor we have uh I mean we'll still have a quorum when Lynn leaves but I am also really hard stop at 11 30 I have to be somewhere at 11 40 we don't mind ending early well here's what I'm gonna suggest given the complexity of any rule change I would like to adjourn the meeting now at 11 14 is that acceptable Ms. O'Keefe is that all right with you sounds good to me all right this meeting of the oh oh um Michelle had a future agenda item thank you for saying that it's another one no just the one I asked about earlier remember that I would like to bring up but that's right that's right I would love to talk to you about that offline before it comes into this meeting um if that works for you I'll give you a call about that are you talking beer pat pat yeah okay all right we can do that you're you're the chair how about you run the next meeting you're then what is it heffa yeah you're the big you want to run the next meeting oh no I wasn't asking that I was just saying what I'm asking that yes that's fine okay we'll we'll check in and we'll do yeah all right all right I declare the meeting ended adjourned ceased dismissed take care everyone and thank you