 Now we're recording. You can go ahead. I'm calling seeing the presence of a quorum. I'm calling the government organization and legislative committee to order at 932 am on September 27 pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 extended by chapter 22 and 107 of the acts of 2022 and extended by chapter 22 of the acts of 2023. This meeting will be conducted via 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 via technological means. Okay. And I don't, there doesn't seem to be any public in attendance. I wanted to go over quickly. We're going to be looking at the stretch energy code. And reviewing the rules of procedure, but I'd like to go to the disposition of the bylaws because I think that we're fine on that. We had made a, so if that's okay with people and then we'll go to the stretch code and get that set. And from there go to rules and procedures. On 830 we voted, I believe, to let the council know that we were taking no action on 3.7 licenses and permits 3.2 special board of appeals. We were making a referral to TSO of the peaking and peering because of the drone issue. CRC has received 326 the nuisance house. So we don't have to deal with that, but I need, we were looking at historic districts and zero energy. So the, we agreed on 712, 12 that no action was needed, but I don't know if we took a vote to get that to council or made a motion to get it to council. And the historic district, I have not heard anything about that. And I guess Jennifer, is there an update on the animal? Bylaw. I just don't hear back. Okay, so three times. So I'm, I'm thinking there isn't, but. Yeah, so I, my preference would be to take no action on that. On the animal and to take no action on the historic districts. Does it really make a major difference? Major difference, whether on ZBA, it's associates and on historic districts, alternates or vice versa. But I want to hear from Athena. I want to hear from the committee because the committee is charged with, I mean, to, to just get this out of committee because the answers we're waiting for are from staff. You can just request like the list of other bylaws that we're waiting for information from Paul. You can just recommend the council request information in order to take those. To the list of bylaws, just so that it's, it's in Paul's court. So if and when they're ready for changes, that's my suggestion. Okay. And do you think Pat we're ready to put this on the agenda on? Well, yeah, that's what I wanted to. Yeah, that's why I wanted to do it with me. Okay. All right. So do you want to add it took to the next meeting or the meeting after that doesn't matter, but I will need to know whether I'm writing anything. I just assume put it on. It's not urgent. I just assume put it on this one. What do you think Athena Mindy Joe has her hand up though. Mandy. Yeah. So, so my question was, I think for the ones that we recommended no action. Nothing has to go on an agenda. And so I just wanted to clarify what's going on an agenda. I think with Athena's recommendation, the only thing going on an agenda would be the animals and the historic. Just. And the referral to TSO on the drones. Oh, did we not refer that to TSO yet? The council didn't refer it because the way the committee discussed it was the council should decide if they want TSO to do something about this or just leave it the way it is for now. Okay. But I would say that the, you know, the GOL report on all the bylaws would be on the agenda and then the recommended actions would be. Yeah. But that, that works for me, but I, I didn't want, I wanted to make sure we weren't going to put on an agenda, something like the council votes to take no action on special appeal. Okay. I think what we're trying to do is get rid of this. Yes. Oh, I agree. That's about as now. So a memo would need to go in by tomorrow yet by Friday or tomorrow. Yes. Friday or tomorrow. We haven't gotten to that part of the rules yet. Okay. So technically today. I'm referring to myself. I'll try and get, I'll try and get the draft minutes too. So you have the, the motions and votes. Okay. Can I just be clear? So we've already referred nuisance. That's already referred, but we should record that in this report. Yeah, yeah. Okay. We are recommending referring peaking and peering to TSO. Yep. And I think that I think the committee vote on that one was to. It might have been wordier than just refer to TSO. I think it was part of the, part of the committee discussion was to recommend the council make a decision rather than just automatically refer. Thank you. Thank you. Good plan. And historic districts, what are we doing here? That's, there's a. I don't even remember. Yeah. So historic districts and animals. It was just, I mean, the committee can recommend no action and just in the report, say if the town manager wants to bring changes or the committee can recommend. The town manager. You know, officially. I forget how we phrased it for the other list of. the list. Jennifer has her hand in house. Yeah, I mean, for the local historic district commission was something about having alternates. I've never known them to have alternates. No, no, yeah, they have alternates. The the issue was what I did say before they call them. ZBA it's called associates or or it could be the other way and on the historic district it's all alternates and it could be either way just doesn't seem I mean it was very important to Bob Richie but it doesn't feel particularly important. I would imagine frankly on the planning departments to do lists that's just getting lost if it's so unimportant. Yeah, Mandy. Yeah, I I was not going to answer Athena's question. It was something like to direct the manager to propose changes or something in accordance you know or review in accordance it was something like that but I think what I would recommend I wouldn't recommend that right now. I think I'd vote against such a recommendation to the council as Jennifer just said. I think these two items are so low on the need list at five years after it was four years after it was recommended by by law review committee right that that I I don't want to put more on Paul's plate that's just no I don't stuff like this I I would rather just say there's no action needed. I I agree with that. I agree too okay and but are we still do we've already voted on the peaking and peering I just don't want to have a huge amount of time at the council meeting absorbed over whether or not this gets recommended do we is this where we want to go. I mean that was the vote was that the council should decide whether it's worth TSO time to consider changing it for drone purposes. I think you could limit the discussion to that and then figure where people are right like it's do does the council want to spend time on modifying peaking and peering to include drones got it okay and I think if we can do this on this meeting it's good because then we just clean this piece up okay okay anything else so peaking and peering we're and in the memo there'll be no action on the historic district or animals um and shall I make a motion. I was going to say that there was agreement on zero energy that no further action is needed are you going to put all of them into a motion Mandy or just I was going to do all three motion all right go for it. I move to recommend the town council take no action on general bylaw 3.21 regulations related to animals general bylaw 3.49 historic districts and general bylaw 3.510 energy okay now on 830 we voted to take no action on the special board of appeals or the license and permits so do we don't have do we have to that should be in the memo right yes yeah okay everybody's shaking their head but that's not watching us what are you shaking your head about me saying yes everyone's nodding he was nodding but you weren't watching everything um everything okay add everything all right all right that's done I think unless we need a vote second and a vote I second second get up theory second okay the motion proposed by Mandy Joe has been seconded by Lynn so are you ready to vote start with Mandy Joe hi Lynn hi Jennifer yes and I'm an eye okay do this congratulations I was on that original bylaw review committee so this is now you were on the one that followed after oh after that I thought there was a bylaw review committee that preceded the council yes there was and then I sat on the council on with Alyssa and Evan and yeah it was fun but I'm sick of it right now all right let's go to the stretch energy code we have the material from KP law yeah and is there anything are there any questions or do I so I would just say KP law hasn't technically reviewed the document that's being proposed but as I said I think to Pat this language comes directly from DOER as the model language to adopt specialized energy code so we just copied their language that they recommended in CRC right they when I I don't have it right in front of me I was just going to try and pull it up but there were things about like the date should there should be clarity and I believe there is clarity about that how the stretch code is in place until we get the other thing that I noticed when I looked at their thing they're saying should people have a choice initially about which code they go with and is that in the bylaw I did not look at the bylaw again this morning I'm sorry that is not in the bylaw that was when we were asking could you adopt it in January right less than six months after the vote since DOER and everyone recommends not not when you adopt say a specialized energy code you put it at least six months out from you know the effective date is six months later and so we were saying well what if we wanted to make it January one and they said well you could make it optional between January and June that seemed more complicated than just saying July one if Athena page is down the motion that CRC voted to recommend is is basically down there although our motion was as as presented at CRC not as shown on these random pages of motion sheet that doesn't exist but that that's where we added the clarity in for the effective date and that the stretch code remains in effect until then for that same reason CRC said basically recommends we quote revised general bylaw 3.48 not rescind and replace because rescind and replace could get a little less clear that even though says it in the bylaw so even though it essentially is a rescind and replace it's technically revised with all those strike-throughs under this motion okay uh Lynn is this the one that Northampton just adopted yes thank you so it's the code I don't know what their bylaw look like but yeah they adopted the same code right okay are there any questions or any reason that we can't recommend this to the town council as presented declare clear consistent actionable yes yeah all that smoky to recommend to the town council that bylaw would it 3.48 um be um stretch energy code the stretch energy code declare we declare clear consistent and actionable second okay and shall we vote okay Lynn aye Jennifer I have to to the unmute yes and it's an aye for me Mandy aye okay all right then we're finished with that whoa now we can go to what did did we do gender affirming health care bylaw we did that but it's coming up for the first read on Monday night yes yeah um let me see all right I I have a question did I just realized for the motion for stretch energy or specialized energy there's a required hearing we might need to add into the draft motion that I completely forgot after having held a public hearing on next day or something and we then we have to schedule the hearing no CRC held the public hearing oh you did the request of that so we just might need to modify I'd forgotten that we normally put that in a lot of our when there's required things we don't do it for the zoning bylaws but I don't know whether it would be wise to do it for this one or not we do it for like the budget stuff what do you think Athena I think it's helpful to have so that when we go and look back to see how things were done we're not as consistent as we ought to be about doing that but it's it's helpful I'll put it I'll put a new motion language into my report great thank you okay and um Mandy send that language to me also so that I can add it if I want to to the my memo just to clarify Mandy Joe you said you've already held the hearing yes we held it on the 21st thank you and uh Pat the GOL report just has to I mean the GOL is just doing clear consistent and that's true okay okay so now we get to the fun part of the meeting which is to look at rules and procedure and I am not even sure where we are anymore in that so Jennifer do you remember where we ended I have um I have notes hang on okay I usually put a little reminder where we left off just so you know I'm having some trouble with my computer sorry for scrolling and scrolling that's all right that's all right so can you make it a little larger just a tad I can see it but um see you later safe and soon Carol um I think the question was absent member absent counselors are they prevailing or non-prevailing side for reconsideration was the discussion and shall we look if anybody have anything so it does seem to me that we should have absent counselors on the non-prevailing side no oh on the non-prevailing side I guess absent or mandy oh I was gonna say Jennifer can go first she's got more solid thoughts than me I don't have solid thoughts I actually have a question so I'm just trying to if a counselor votes no how are they on the prevailing side they're not they're not any counselor voting with the non wait motions if if no's fail right no so motions high vote no's are the prevailing side but okay right if the vote's three yes ten no the no's are the prevailing side so whether a no or yes is the prevailing side the question is who can bring a reconsideration right it's just the prevailing side I would think or anybody on the non-prevailing would always bring a ask for reconsideration so the prevailing side can bring a reconsideration the non-prevailing side needs to be accompanied by new or additional information that's the difference okay and the other thing is the tie vote issue the tie vote's not an issue because the a tie vote is it does not pass prevailing correct now this is not getting to the issue of what an abstention count says an abstention count so my recommendation was that abstentions count as non-prevailing because the counselor chose not to vote I agree and that absent counselors would be considered non-prevailing because they it it didn't make sense to me to consider them prevailing because they didn't vote yes and if the motion passed then it it wouldn't make sense for them to have a motion for reconsideration without additional information but but there wasn't it didn't seem like the committee had agreement Mandy's got her hand up too go ahead Mandy yeah and so so some of what Jennifer brings up is section b of this is the change from Robert's rules which is why it's in this rules because Robert's rules if we defaulted there only prevailing side motions are allowed for reconsideration but I'm I actually don't know whether Robert's rules indicates what abstain or absent voters whether absent or abstains are at all I would I would bet if they did do it abstain would not be considered a prevailing side because of the same reasons Athena do and I absolutely agree that if you've chosen if you were at the meeting and chose them not to vote you don't get the you know the the the sort of privilege that the prevailing side people get of being able to reconsider without new information if you chose not to vote I struggle with the absent one and this is where I don't know what's right in some sense I say well you weren't at the meeting so yeah you shouldn't get the sort of privilege of saying I want to reconsider without any additional information because you weren't at the meeting um but at the same time you weren't at the meeting and if the vote's close when you're looking at it from a as elected officials where does the body stand if the vote is a 6-6 tie and someone wasn't at the meeting maybe it makes sense to be able to reconsider with quote no additional information to break that tie if the person if someone that's absent is there right and so I I just don't know what is better for the council from that absent council or point of view when you have those close votes and someone happens not to be there for whatever reason you know should should that if it is a one vote difference or two people were absent and if it would change it if they were present should they need to bring new information in order to reconsider that vote or should they not have to and frankly is new information hey if all 13 of us are here that outcome's different right I don't yeah I just don't know what's right yeah I'm not sure if I do either it seems it feels like it could become some kind of negative strategy to say oh well there's a top you know now I'm going to change it because I wasn't here when you have a responsibility to be present and many people are present when they're sick they're present when they're traveling etc etc so I don't think they should get any special privilege Jennifer and then Lynn actually Jennifer go first that's what I said no but then it raised your hand first no no no Jennifer please go before me I agree with Pat and I think now that we can zoom in to meetings it you can be traveling in and you could even you know yeah I agree with Pat I think that I just fear that there would be there would be strategizing Lynn um yeah and although there are times when people are absent and they cannot zoom in but that is a judgment call I mean you know you're in the hospital you're in a remote area without connectivity um bluntly it was your anniversary and you know you decided that you didn't want to piss off your spouse um you know just something that basically you know really is a very firm legitimate excuse for not being there so that but I don't think we can word this in a way that kind of gets at the legitimacy of being absent so I'm not clear that we can do anything more than what it stated here but I Mandy Joe you brought up a really good point and that is you know if the person that was absent for whatever reason would swing the vote that's new information Mandy and then Jen her so my next thing that I want to bring up is maybe I wouldn't have as much of a problem with absence being non-prevailing sides if our charter was not written in such a way that that absent person still counts to many of our votes as a no vote no matter what um essentially because we have so many votes that require a majority of the number the full town council whether or not 13 people are present and so you might have 11 people there and we've seen these situations 11 people there all 11 vote it's six five but it fails even though it received a majority of those present because it needed seven because of how our charter is written and so I guess this is this is why I don't know what the right answer is because our charter is a lot of times written to not to not be majority prevails if all 13 people aren't even present in a sense um we don't have many meetings where all 13 are not present which is great and and one of the things that is is good about a council is we basically always have all 13 present except in extending circumstances but if we don't you know that that one vote even the the council may get a majority in the vote but it still may not pass because the majority is not a majority of those present and present even not present in voting isn't actually a majority of the full town council and the by the charter requires a full town council so again I how do you deal with that and then you're just guessing who was absent and what their vote would be right and so you know I think I'd be okay this way if the absent person can say but if I vote the vote would change is counts as new information but I I don't know again whether even we want to go back to stuff like that how how often does it happen I'm not actually sure in the five years we've been here I think it's happened once exactly once where something like that would have swung something so it doesn't happen very often so maybe we're stressing up for it for no reason yeah no Jennifer has a hand up yeah and then uh I see no I don't think somebody being absent and changing the vote is new information I just I just don't see how yeah it doesn't feel like new information to me you know the only reason I made this recommendation was to clarify what happens in this situation not because it happens all the time um I I kind of want to say if it's if it's difficult to decide then leave it out and we'll figure what if and when it does happen um but that kind of defeats the purpose of that recommendation in the first place then and then Jennifer I'm going to go back up to a I think the second sentence in a needs to read in case the measure decided by a tie vote any counselor voting in the positive or negative will be considered as voting with the prevailing side the way it's written here it's it it's so what if the what if the tie the prevailing side was no that set second sentence makes no sense yes it does because of voting in the negative means that the motion a tie vote means the motion failed and so voting no was prevailing okay because okay because it did not pass they voted no and it didn't pass but why that's prevailing why are we favoring what if somebody from the yes side wants to bring it back up then they need to bring more information yeah it's the new information now it's not just so it's not just the motion failed and I wish it passed and I just want the council to vote on it again it's the motion failed it didn't pass and now I have new information that might compel the council to change their mind one way or the other all right what it said okay it's up to you if you want to if you want to do something different but that's the law I think that's the logic behind this um anything else on that one before I go to Jennifer no go ahead Jennifer no I was just as we wanted a real-world example that the the grass versus the artificial turf Thanksgiving week it was six to six and pat you were absent so that was I can't even imagine how many emails you were getting it turned out we had more information there was more information brought so right didn't have to be the swing vote but that I mean if we're just looking at an example of something with a lot of public attention where we were in this situation we're one but I mean it had to make a difference because it was you know we were tied so yeah I think so here if you use that as an example so so something that I wouldn't recommend putting in the rules but is a mechanism for a counselor who is absent would be to ask another Cal to save this vote is really important to me and I can't make it to the meeting can you move to postpone it right or or just you know use your charter right to postpone I mean I like I said I wouldn't put that in the rules but there is another mechanism for so what we're stuck on is in B whether somebody who abstained or is absent only is absent I think there was agreement that an abstention would count as a no so we're taking we're taking that out no I think there's agreement that an abstain if you choose to abstain you are the non-prevailing side right no matter what it is to the non-prevailing side if you choose to abstain and it's the absent I kind of like you know maybe you know the charter right to postpone is not supposed to be as contentious as it always has been you know and in some sense I kind of like what Athena says you know if if someone's going to be absent and they're looking at a vote trying to get that you know we do that for sponsored things it's actually in our rules that if a sponsor can't be at a meeting there should not be a vote on the measure the sponsor has sponsored right that that's like a couple of rules down in terms of the rule of procedure and so normalizing using the charter right to postpone or saying you know there's issues with sometimes votes have to happen no matter what because of timing but but normalizing you know we're going to try and take big votes only when all 13 of us are here because these votes are you know they it matters right and and that's why we're all here we all make that effort to show up so so maybe in that case absent is okay because there's others Athena said there's other ways to ensure potentially ensure that if someone is absent the vote might not have to happen yeah I mean another way and I don't think you want to put this in the rules is that person could say you know this is a vote that's really important to me I can't be at the meeting would you the president postpone it to the next meeting yeah that's exactly our suggestion and you know what the president can share that you know someone who is absent tonight is asked for this to be postponed I have agreed boom done yeah yeah I like that and and I think that and I think that goes along with what Jennifer said about you know being having being absent from a vote not being new information because um I I think if if we hadn't had this discussion and we had run into this situation and Lynn asked me if that's new information I would have said no and then the council would have had to hash that out but um that it circumvents that issue I think yeah so are we okay with this I think so no I think we are okay just took us 45 minutes to get there well that's a little confusing yeah okay the next maybe we can get through one or two of these a little easier the next one I didn't expect any of these to be this controversial the next one is 8.4 discussion of measures let me get down to where okay um so what I recommended uh the current role requires council discussed proposed bylaws regulations and policies at a council meeting prior to the meeting on which the measure is voted since the council narrowed the scope of this role the council's practice has not been to read policies and regulations at a meeting prior to the vote so I recommended striking the first sentence of 8.4 to consistently treat policies and regulations as non-by-law measures Lynn I I don't necessarily agree and the reason I don't necessarily agree is I'm gonna you know reflect on some of our regulations around sewer and water things that really really impact people and for the council to not provide um two readings or two considerations I think is leaves us open to not being as transparent as we should Mandy um I don't know where I stand I think regulations are similar to bylaws so I would at least keep regulations in policies I don't know there's different classes of policies I think um you know in some sense our rules of procedure are policies yet we don't now we got rid of the reading of them at a meeting before we change them right we we just moved it to a super majority vote um something like the comprehensive housing policy it's big but it's much more of a guidance document than a different than something like a regulation whereas the policy on public ways that delegates information doesn't seem as big as the comprehensive housing policy but might actually have more um regulatory authority so policies as a whole I'm not there's just different classes that I think some can probably not need two readings others could um we haven't been following it so then I go there but what I actually raised my hand to say was if we do delete the first sentence I actually think the whole the whole rule can go because the second sentence I don't think has anything to do with discussion of measures versus we have the charter right to postpone a section on that in the rules completely and so I think if we delete the first sentence we don't need rule 8.4 at all if we think we need the second sentence the right to postpone we should just move that to the right to postpone section rule in our rules and not keep it separate here because that'd be confusing Jennifer and then I'd like to say something yeah so I think it should stay as two readings I mean something like the comprehensive housing policy it may just be a guide but people the thing is they get quoted all the time and I so yeah I think it becomes almost more important because of how it can and is used I mean that's one reason you know I was such a stickler about the engage report in CRC about the rental because you know it's out there and people quoted and you know so they it starts to have a life of its own that long um outlives all of us thank you Jennifer what I'm thinking is there are time I I agree pretty much with you Jennifer I'm also seeing sometimes it can just not need a second reading different regulations or different so why not just simply change the shell to me because then it could go either way the council may or the Lynn yeah I mean I I don't see reason to change it from shell to me I think the more the rules are firm better for future councils but also we've had situations where we've had two readings and it's very apparent from the first reading that this is a no-brainer and it's just going to pass it can then go on the consent agenda and you don't really spending any more time on it so or you can waste it there's ways to do that yeah I think I think if that's the case then it would be cleaner to wave the roll just be consistent about waving the rule if we're not going to do two readings okay and that way if people don't want to wave the rule then it goes to the next agenda that's where I don't see the mandate and then Lynn I was going to say the same thing Athena says when we don't think something needs a second reading you know if we're changing the policy on public ways to clarify something we've changed that thing lots of times sometimes to add stuff but sometimes just to redo the wording because we screwed up the wording or something but we're not changing anything just on the motion sheet put waiver of rule 8.4 and then motion to adopt or you know to a motion to adopt just stick it right on there to be clear and I think Lynn was going to say where's the ability to wave we always have the ability to wave our rules it's just a motion we don't have to say it in here if you want the waiver to be more than a majority then you need to put in the rules wait what waving that rule would require but any rule can be waived by a majority vote of the council I think there is something about the the votes required for waiving the rules I think that is a I can I don't think we have it in our rules there's certain rules one of these eight point I think eight point three or eight point six requires something requires special things maybe it's amending the rules that I was thinking of amending is two thirds but waving eight point three or eight point six have a specific how to waive that particular rule one of the like referral beforehands are not considered until yeah so I think what I would ask if there's not going to be a change to this would be that committees include that in their recommendation it's helpful to know this isn't controversial what recommend to change it or to declare clear consistent actual and put it on consent agenda or or put it on consent agenda with waiver of rules or put or something like I mean you don't have to get into consent agenda but at least a recommendation on waiving the rule there's been so many feelings about what goes on consent that I think if it comes as a committee recommendation then it's another decision that Lynn doesn't have to make well and I appreciate that but I also know that between a time a council committee has made a decision or vote and it comes to the council it's become controversial and so it can be seen as a recommendation but it's got to be something that the president can say hey you know since you all met yeah a lot of people have weighed in on this that makes sense so we're leaving this like it is seems like it what's next nine hang on the council amended rule 1.6 amendment and repeal to require a two-thirds vote of the full council for rule changes but it did not amend rule 9.2 which states rule changes must be read twice in accordance with 1.6 I think we just delete that whole sentence right that's fine with me anybody have an objection to that so we only have to read once rules the the council changed 1.6 to instead of reading it twice it requires a two-thirds vote of the council to amend the rules but this still says read twice so I looking at 9.2 again I I'm curious how the two now the two sentences but even the three sentences relate to the actual title of the rule meeting and posting requirements well the third sentence is definitely yeah related to posting yeah but it's a charter thing so we can't change it in the rules so I know we reference the charter a lot in some of these I don't know it's easier to have it all kind of referenced here I think I agree with that it's just it's so specific to a certain thing it's not about like meetings shall be done 48 you know it's not the oml 48 hour or anything it just seems like a weird title maybe it's because it belongs someplace else I for the moment I would just leave it there and take out the sentence note it for the next council that's just strange yeah anybody object to what lin just said that we take it out and we leave everything the way it is and then you just do thumbs up I don't think we need to vote nobody raised their hand but then the second part of 9.2 requires the council read non-emergency by-law changes at two separate meetings prior to the at a meeting prior to the vote so what I put in my recommendation was that if the council chooses or if the committee chooses to retain their requirement to read policies and regulations at a meeting prior to the vote I suggest adding regulations and policies to this sentence that's consistent with what we just said above exactly yeah okay then put it in policy changes yeah the word change is kind of weird because we don't change we revise or we were sin regulation or policy change how's that revision instead of change yeah amendment amendments or something yeah that works but make it amendments no a there's an a at the beginning must read a proposed I would just say must read proposed non-emergency by-law regulation or policy amendments otherwise saying you basically have to do things one at a time then we'll get rid of the aid before the word proposed and yeah an s after amendment okay and I think that it becomes a them then the very last word of the sentence the the charter section reference is no longer fully accurate then take it out because that's only for by-laws well or leave it in say charter section plus I don't know well the rules already cited there yeah yeah so leave the charter charter section reference is no longer accurate for that sentence okay fine I guess it's not it's not that it's not accurate it's misleading that it applies to all three when it really only applies to one can we just move this to here behind by-law see charter section yeah yeah and yes excellent yep thank you the thing the period after the charter section 210 a thank you what's next this is great the following additions to cross cross reference the number of votes required by the rules for these items so seven in favor for passage election of officers hold a work session adopted here let me just paste this in and you can decide what you want to do with it there's a couple for two-thirds and and the next ones but we can do this one at a time this is just consistent what's already in the rules can't make sense get rid of that little red dot at the I think it's gone it's just okay and then for two-thirds there might be others that I missed in putting these in but it's just I like having them there so before you go on Athena okay the supermajority one rescind or amend something previously adopted when the original emotion required a supermajority um depend on the motion because some of that is nine not just two-thirds of counselors present in voting yeah Jennifer um yeah I know I can go back and read what it's referring to in terms of the zoning changes what requires um two readings versus one is there any way to summarize that I mean what what requires and isn't some of this determined by the state in terms of zoning what requires a supermajority and what doesn't for zoning yeah but that's nine or seven so that's covered under the nine or seven because our charter requires votes of bylaws to be a majority or supermajority of the full town council so that that's where even if there's only 10 people present if you need a majority if you if it's a bylaw you still need seven eyes not six for 10 people present you'd still need seven you'd still need nine if it was a third's vote even if only 10 people were present um because of how the charter's written so that's why I brought up this one I'm thinking amend the by amend a budget that was previously passed or a bond authorization the bond authorization I think requires nine no matter what I'm not sure um or to amend the zoning bylaw a week later um requires nine not just a supermajority so to amend something that was previously adopted like that you'd need nine not just two-thirds of those present in voting right so do you so um is what you're saying this should be two-thirds and then we should also put in under nine where's nine nine's right up is above the seven um then to put into to amend something previously adopted when it needed nine yeah two-thirds of councilors present in voting I think it's nine votes in favor a space between votes and in in yeah thank you anything else there I yeah I'm sorry I should raise my hand go ahead Lynn I find it strange that if you had to have a supermajority the supermajority is is this isn't this isn't a change it's just a consistency it's fine go ahead it's fine it's just putting in the rules what is already true yeah got it any other changes um traditions or moving things around if we're okay with this one then extensions all I've done here is to pick what votes are required from the rules and put them in here because it's it's nice to have what what workers what number of votes in this number of votes required section rather than having to look through sections and then figure it out so the this isn't a substantive change it's just you know putting references in here where it's helpful to have references yeah I agree as an aside one of the things that I think we need to do with the new council because there will be new members on it they need to get a copy of the rules of procedures right away and be told to review them because yeah okay because there was just a ton of tension about things that I think they should new councillors should have known when they first you know we're got yeah anyway I appreciate that suggestion that's something that we're going to try and try and do a little bit more of an orientation when the new council is seated like we did at the retreat maybe a truncated version of what we did at the retreat we we have in the past sent or at least for this current council's term we've sent the rules and asked them to review but there's just so much that comes in when when councils are first seated it's hard to expect that I keep going back to the the tension around liaisons because there were assumptions made about what that role was by different people because they were new Lynn so when do we plan to bring this to the council never um when is the meeting after the monday's meeting it's 16 16 there'll be a good meeting to bring this to you mean the whole schmugge because I have a change that I want to go back on um yeah Mandy so I was going to ask the same thing because I think pat you mentioned at the last council meeting that this council wasn't going to vote on any of the changes we've been talking about and I I would rather see us vote on almost all of them if not all of them and then highlight some for the new council to to maybe look at more closely uh but I don't want to leave a new council with a set of rules that is just marked up and like yeah now vote on these right um but but the document we were just looking at where it was the changes Athena requested we've got another document out there that has a lot of changes that we've somewhat agreed on and somewhat still we're discussing and some that we didn't even get to discussing and so I think we need to go back to that document too uh and some of them might be in rules that were listed in today's agenda if we want to try and hit those rules today too but but I think we should do it all at some point or we could maybe bring Athena's rules the document we just went through that are basically Athena's to one of the meetings and then the other document to a different meeting but I think we should not leave the next council with a marked up copy of the rules yeah I could leave them with a we did this but we recommend gol in the new council consider these four carefully or something you know like relook at these four something like that there were some that just didn't have a strong consensus right looked at them so that might those might be ones that go into the carryover report they go out of discussion and yeah and I might want to make a time with you Athena if it's something you are willing to do and go back over those notes and things and sort of pull together we have a meeting on the 11th before the town council meeting on the 16th and I'd like to have that memo ready for that does that make sense to people so we can look at did you say you were gonna you were gonna put these on the the agenda for October 16 Lynn so I absolutely would urge that we do that yeah I I was very perplexed Pat when you said we were going to not bring this to this council I think this council owes it to the next council to finish up this work uh because we've spent so much time on it and even if there are ones where we haven't reached consensus let's have the discussion in the council and see if we can get a vote so that the next council is dealing with a set of rules not a lot of change recommendations and if they want to bring it back they can but it we've been a council for five years almost we've had these rules for four and a half years I think that's right maybe it's maybe it's only four and we've just spent a good portion of this committee's time on them I think we should say okay this was like a really comprehensive review and here's what we did and if we want a little sidebar that says here were some of the bigger controversial areas that's fine but let's let's hand the next council a new set of rules I can agree with that Mandig so I think today we could vote a recommendation for the document we were just looking at which was just I think that document Athena is just the ones you had requested and so we've been through them and I think reached consensus on all of them and so we could probably vote a recommendation on that document for the council today so that then we're dealing with the another document that is sold that it doesn't have all the new changes in it which might be problematic for Athena but we'll figure it out we'll figure it out but but then Pat you could start writing the memo for this document or this set of changes right but I agree with that you I don't think we should try to split this up over two council meetings I think we should do it all at one no I think that's fine but but this is going to be a big report and so if we wrote it these recommendations Pat can start the report on this set that's that's what that's fine and and I know it's a push to do it on the 16th but we are absolutely holding the meeting that's on the 13th of November to be all about finance and so this is and then the next one which is the 20th is when we do the reading session and the town manager's evaluation okay so I go ahead as CRC chair I would caution holding any of the November meetings for not any by loss right rental reg should be back to the council sometime in November and it needs to be because the bylaws need to reading so I would caution nothing but something is going on any agendas whether it's ready for the 13th I have no idea but just keep in mind there's bylaw stuff out there that need two readings and Jennifer this is going to be a report that you and I will do together yes and we can do that right I don't understand we're not a majority of the committee so yeah why don't we just say that Pat's going to write the report and if she needs I'll ask for advice from different yeah or if you want to just yeah just committee members yeah thank you committee member oh okay well or let's go back the committee can give you feedback on the report outside of meeting but we're not but you can't go back and forth and back and forth with members yep yep no reply also and Pat won't be yeah um let's go to um man do you want to make a motion for uh the work on Athena's document we have a document title or or can I just say on the document and you'll add into the motion the right title sure um I moved to recommend the town council adopt amendments to the town council rules of procedure as modified in document title that at the September 27th 2023 GOL meeting second okay let's vote Jennifer yes Mandy hi Lynn hi and I'm an eye can I bring up one issue that's a jump back into public comment no okay not on the agenda I keep forgetting to put it on the agenda so so rule seven eight and nine are on the agenda so we can do anything in that prior document that's in those rules right along with rule four and I'm not sure we've ever gotten to seven eight or nine and I think there were other requests from months ago yeah are we doing Medicare for all I thought on this agenda didn't we do it already we did it we already did it I need to talk to you Lynn about that there were changes that this one of the community sponsor brought you we're gonna bring it up and touch with the sponsors the sponsors are having problems finding time to get together to talk about those changes so we might not be able to do that until Friday but the community sponsor is expecting October 2nd so I'm trying to think something out so are we are we doing let's go to seven eight nine I must admit yeah go ahead seven eight and nine from that old old document yep I have it up and I wanted to mention Kathy had suggested a change but it didn't it wasn't exact words about the legislative process I'm not exactly sure what she wanted but it was it was sort of in reaction to the the outreach proposal that Shalini had brought and my advice to her was wait until TSO makes a recommendation or send your comments to TSO regarding that just in respect of what TSO is doing and Shalini's work on it it sounds like she also wanted to propose some changes to seven in terms of the legislative process but she hasn't sent words I've asked her for words because her thoughts were unclear to me and the email I can show the email if you'd like to see it or we can just move on and wait for her to bring those changes yeah I think we can move on so I'll talk about this one since it was my insert and it's been a long long time this is monstery I have no idea whether I the goal of this and I'd rather just have a conversation to see if the council wants to approach anything beyond necessarily this specific language my goal was to figure out a way to moderate how long we spend on debate before we actually affirmatively decide to spend longer on debate or not spend time on debate it seems like counselors are well I've tried different ways for using the motion to end debate to call the question right now calling the question you need to wait in line you can't just do it and that can if you're 13th in line can take 20 30 minutes to even do it depending on how things are going so I was looking for potentially other ways although I think my preferred method would be to in any way do a call the question that is a privileged motion that can be made without you know that can be made between speakers without having to be called on so not privileged like point of order where you can interrupt a speaker but between speakers I proposed that I think two years ago but how do we essentially try to keep track of time and say you know we've been here for 30 minutes are we making any progress in deliberations or are we just rehashing the same stuff and if we're just rehashing the same stuff well we can do that but let's affirmatively decide to do that or decide that that was my thoughts but it's more of a how do we do time checks on the council on ourselves more than anything so I wanted to say that before we specifically get into this wording in general like just it would be better I think just to talk about how do we time check our own deliberations and debate on motions of if we're all you know sometimes I've gotten the feeling all the counselors have already decided how they're going to vote are we going to spend another hour discussing it even if no one's going to change their mind and how do we sort of get to that point it might just be more of a running of a meeting than a particular rule I think can you make it a little bigger and Jennifer and then Lynn yeah I think that thank you thank you I I like the concept of this what I think would be much more useful is what I've seen more recently and that is somebody calling the question because it seems to be that we're calling the question more often now when we realize that there is that everybody's kind of solid on where they're going to vote are you suggesting are you suggesting that the that counselors don't need to be recognized to call the question no oh no no no somebody on the council has to call the question but I I'm not opposed to this I want to hear from Jennifer yeah two things I'm gonna have to just you know bow out for about three minutes okay but I did I um I am more partial to it being you know deferring to the president on how they run a meeting my concern about um limiting it to 20 minutes is that's you know seven counselors seven times three yeah but you really don't give a lot of people a chance to speak I will be right back yeah and I agree with Jennifer feels like too short a time uh it would be 40 minutes if every counselor got him you know uh three minutes to speak about 40 minutes 39 minutes if every you know there were no ships in there and and size and breasts Mandy yeah so as I said I'm completely okay with ignoring this proposal um but in terms of as a new role um it was just trying to think of another way I still preference allowing people to call the question between speakers um because you know the way our rules are written everyone who hasn't spoke gets to speak first and I agree with that I'm not saying you know um you know if we have 13 people that want to speak we probably should allow all 13 to speak before we vote potentially um but once that happens you go in line again and if you're slow in raising your hand say you might be 10th in line and we'd have to get through another nine before we get to someone who's willing to or is wanting to call the question instead of trying you know and and by then you're done your debate anyway so I don't I'm not sure how having to wait in line to call the question speeds up discussion and and and closes that so I would make calling the question sort of one of those semi-privileged motions not where you can interrupt a speaker but that you don't have to be recognized by the chair you can you can make that motion between speakers without recognition by the chair I agree with that I don't agree to the time change which we you know the time limitations here I think that it would be extraordinarily controversial in a negative way because oh where you see they're trying to control who gets to you know blah blah blah so I think we should get rid of this but I agree about calling the question between speakers I remember recently waiting to call the question and being crazed because we were all everyone who was participating was saying their same statement over and over again. Athena and then Mandi, Athena. Mandi it sounds like you're suggesting that calling the question would be appropriate after all the counselors have had an opportunity to make a comment? I mean I'm I guess I'm not suggesting we eliminate the ability before all counselors have had the ability to make a comment I'm just saying I'm not sure anyone would do it until all counselors have had the ability but if someone does I'm not sure the council would vote two-thirds to end debate but once everyone's spoken that's when I think it's more logical to say calling the question doesn't have you don't have to wait your turn in line to call the question as long as something like that. Well I wonder and Lynn this is more just your your running the meeting process but I wonder if it would be helpful if you ask counselors not to raise their hand again until every all the counselors have had an opportunity to speak so that somebody's not jumping ahead in line and you can just look at who's spoken unless you already have a method of keeping track of who's spoken once because my method is to try to mentally remember who spoke yeah that's that's hard yeah and it's I often hear somebody say oh wait someone said I haven't spoken yet she just raised her hand you know but sometimes I don't choose to speak there's not a reason to people have stated what I was going to say yeah yeah I'm not waiting for me no no no constitutes an opportunity no I'm not I'm not saying that you know that you have to wait and to make sure that everybody has hadn't has spoken if they want to but just you know if you yeah if you've already spoken once wait until people who haven't spoken speak until you reach out I don't know something like that so um I had my hand up um I just want to remind people that every vote is almost always a required roll call vote and so 20 minutes seems short for every roll call vote um and yet I troll I absolutely and completely appreciate the spirit of this suggestion um anyway that's my only thought anything so where are we with this because I'm okay rejecting this change but I would like us to potentially consider as I said making the call the question motion a semi-privileged motion I agree with that so I don't want to accept that the rule but I do want to do the call the question change amendment and and basically what we're saying just so I understand is that you can't do it while someone's speaking but you can do it in between right I like that so I had some wording a couple times ago but it was not within this list of 11 I think it was below Athena where there's a you may not interrupt a speaker except for I think there's a sentence like that um not no um go above right after the list of the 11 motions or whatever there's a paragraph of talking of statements this motion to adjourn um well maybe it's not there somewhere there's about not being able to interrupt a speaker except for motions of privilege maybe it's in a different rule and then let me look up if I can find language and where I put it last time okay thank you man maybe we just add it to the list can move on and I'll come back to uh when I find it I'll let you know okay were there other specific issues I don't have that older document with me I apologize so I don't know what else counselors were saying I know Andy had something about legislation um just scrolling down through seven yeah um Mandy I was I was looking for it's under 7.4 I think sorry okay no I think it's under rule six or something I'll have to go back because it was under discussion and debate where you can't interrupt people so it would be under whatever five or six was about conductive meetings that must be where it was okay so we can't discuss it then no and I will look to see where my proposed what my proposed language was thank you man finding it is there anything up for people in section seven so it looks like there was some section seven red stuff here I don't know whether we discussed do we remember the right to request the right to postpone yeah I thought we had talked about that ages ago but I could be wrong because I remember there was a um Brujaha in council about whether debate could continue so I'm pretty sure that we debate on the motion stops I think this language could be improved I guess just one of the things I think um the language of the right to postpone does not preclude the council from continuing the discussion on the matter is that what you're yes yeah because it does preclude the council from continuing discussion on the motion what's and so what is the different continue the topic matter yeah the right to postpone precludes the council from continuing discussion on the motion but does not preclude discussion on the topic issue and again this has always been the case we're just clarifying there was a there was a situation where the right to post the charter right to postpone was invoked and discussion ended and it was just that we didn't quite understand but it's always said that you could continue a discussion on the topic or is this new Mandy what does it say on the charter the charter well we could pull it out um the charter all all discussion on the motion shall cease or something let me go get the charter all discussion on the motion we're saying we can we're thinking of saying but you can continue the topic that is if a single member present objects to the taking of the vote the vote shall be postponed until the next meeting of the town council whether regular or special so the charter says the vote no no but the last sentence is the use of this right shall have privilege over all motions must be raised prior to or at the call by the presiding officer for a vote and once invoked all debate on the measure shall cease that's fairly clear I think that the discussion ends and I think that's why we ruled it that way yeah in that instance or the Lynn Lynn rule the measure on the measure shall cease so the measure is the motion but isn't the topic also it depends we've had topics where there's four motions on the table or four proposed potential motions right so I think we interpreted measure as the agenda item yeah but isn't that what we're discussing now whether the measure is the agenda item right yeah I mean in that instance that's how I think we we had decided and so I think I have a question though no I've had my hand up oh I'm sorry I'm okay no just before it goes on so I just want to know um there's a motion and then it has to be seconded and then you could call for it this is the charter right to postpone which doesn't require a second no no but somebody proposes a measure does it have can you say I propose something somebody could say you know end debate or does it have to be seconded because it's not really a motion on the table till it's seconded so if someone makes a motion to adopt a measure that needs a second if so nothing happens until there's a second on the motion to adopt a measure the charter right post to postpone would happen after a motion is made and seconded and seconded and then the the charter right to postpone doesn't require a second right but you couldn't call it off until there's somebody seconded the motion yeah it's it's not really on the on the floor until then the motion Mandy yeah so so the confusion I think happens when we have action items and don't have motions on the floor but begin debate because what are you debating when there's not a motion on the floor so when when we'll know that I've I've urged her many times to and we're getting better at it to always put the motion on the floor because a few things if there's no motion on the floor you cannot move to basically stop debate and call the question because there's no question to call um because there's no question on the floor so I think the better we get at making sure there's a motion on the floor before we begin debate and making sure debate relates only to that motion the less confusion happens when say the charter right to postpone is invoked because that right is being invoked for that motion um there might be another motion that's made after that that doesn't necessarily relate to the first one I'm thinking about um our budgets we generally put our budget votes all on the same topic but there's a vote for operating then there's a vote for capital then there's a vote for borrowing then there's a vote for this well I could invoke the right to postpone on the operating budget but that doesn't mean we can't then move on and put a motion on the floor to adopt the capital budget under the right to postpone the right to postpone only postponed the motion that was on the floor so writing this sentence I don't know how we clarify that which is why I said I'd support a better wording of this because the the confusion comes in and in that instance the confusion came in because the topic was under discussion topics without any action even proposed anywhere wasn't even under action items that night and then a motion was made and yes I used my charter right to postpone to postpone decision and vote on the motion but the topic was separate from the motion because the motion in my mind shouldn't have even been there because we were under discussion topics it was one of the reasons I used the right because it was like we weren't even contemplating motions in action because of where it was on the agenda in my mind so the better we do procedure the clearer other use of procedure becomes and what the next action is I just don't know how to write that into this rule Lynn so the first of all I agree with Mandy Joe the best best thing is to make sure there's a motion on the floor so maybe this I'm not going to have perfect wording but let me try this if an agenda item includes multiple motions the right to postpone does not preclude the council from moving on to the next motion but the agenda the only motions we put motions on the motion sheet but that's not an exhaustive list counselors could make other motions so I think that that sort of sounds like the only other motions that would be in order would be the ones on the motion sheet which I don't think we can restrict okay so then again if the agenda item includes multiple motions or other motions are offered from the floor the right to postpone does not preclude the council from moving on to the next motions how about I'm sorry for Anna for jumping in between Mandy but um how about the right to postpone does not preclude the council from uh discussion and action on other motions related to the same topic or the same something related to the same agenda item I I mean I want to try to you know nail it down to it's an agenda item we've listed it that agenda item might have multiple motions counselors might make additional motions you know frankly I think of when we did the CSSJC CSWG motions we had several it got very complicated and then there were additional motions but anyway Mandy hands her hand up she's maybe helped me up I just called on her I was going to suggest sort of the opposite of this instead of does not preclude I was gonna say the use of closed poems ceases debate on the motion on the floor it's not as clear though maybe maybe what you're doing with the the negative is is better I actually I actually believe you take the first sentence I wrote and you have it be the second sentence so that it's we're trying to be as clear as possible how about that yep you know that works the use of it yeah that's good yeah I'm fine Mandy are you all right with that Jennifer yes yeah I think there's consensus on that shall we go on um just want to be clear I have a hard stop at 10 30 I mean 11 30 um uh so there was a request sorry go ahead I was going to ask you about that note request for the reconsideration was that your request that we it wasn't it was a counselor request we just discussed this I know we discussed my recommendation there was a counselor request to discuss this um or during the during GOL's earlier meetings about this so if if it's okay with everybody we can move on I'm not sure what the request I think what I would suggest is that we just discussed it and we came up with a few changes to whatever we're done all right and I think this might this might even be Kathy's suggestion but it sounds like this was somewhat similar to what she had suggested I'm sorry I think the word buy is left out proposed by a lot to be by the council this was like the exact wording that a counselor had brought forward yeah yeah but now we can change it right Mandy so this wording is in replacing of the in the form necessary for final adoption um I think what the change is getting at is a different thing from what form necessary for final adoption was um and and changes things dramatically so a counselor can propose something like Jennifer Pam Rooney Michelle and I did about rental registration when we said hey the council needs to work on this we've got a draft we know this draft is not good but it's a starting point for something but what we really want is the committee needs to be the one that drafts this change which is which is different than you know so basically the introduction was not necessarily of a bylaw um it was of a concept to revise the bylaw which I think is what what section the new draft this parting red is getting at or counselors can actually propose bylaws full you know Evan did it in the past with a change to one of the bylaws for open containers on the town common alcohol on the common um Pat I and Kathy have done it in wage theft where it was a complete thing and yes things were changing but it was in a form that could be adopted that day um that lessons the committee work I guess I am concerned with if we adopt or change to this new set of wordings we'll get a lot of proposals that say well I like you know I like the idea of having a bylaw that does why whatever why is so counsel spend all your time drafting that bylaw instead of the counselor actually drafting the bylaw and coming to the council with a proposed bylaw in that form that doesn't mean it can't change we're all familiar with it changes dramatically a lot at at committees that's the point of a committee but to not require it be proposed it's almost as if saying well a resolution can be proposed by saying hey we'll refer to gol a resolution on um making September national you know a proclamation proclaiming September um ice cream month but gol write the proclamation no if you're going to sponsor it you need to present it in a form that could be adopted even if it's going to be changed I that that's my opinion so I I don't favor this at least the portion that says you don't need to propose it in a form that would be necessary for final adoption um the rest of it I don't think relates to what needs to be on it I think it relates to the process of maybe not introducing a bylaw but getting it to committee Lynn and Athena and then Lynn let Lynn go first okay um I believe that there is another counselor who has weighed in on this issue and I'd like to make sure we're looking at all of the uh evident all of the people that have weighed in I believe the issue that the people are trying to get at and is that a a bylaw may be brought to the council that appears to be in final form and ready for adoption but in fact it may be extremely complicated and instead of referring it directly for hearing to CRC and the zoning and the planning board that it should be referred to a committee where it gets kind of worked over then brought back to the council for a referral for hearing that's what I believe people are trying to get out here and I that's what I believe Andy is trying to get out with his recommendations you think it's only for zoning it might be more for zoning but I don't think it's only for zoning Athena I think that that has been the case that there's been some some push to have an initial referral before the referral that starts the clock um I have advised a number of times that if there's not language proposed then you know it's referring an idea doesn't really make sense and I I brought this up most recently when the stretch energy code bylaw change came up because we didn't have words and so what's being referred the idea to do something exactly what Mandy said I I don't know that I'm going to get into the issue of no I will my opinion is that good girl it's the council decision to refer something if it if it wants to refer it if the council decision is that it wants sponsors to to do other things with it I mean I think it's I no I take I change my mind I'm not going to get to that Jennifer but I did want to say that referring an idea doesn't make sense to me and I've said that again right Jennifer yeah so I know this may not the count counters abroad this may not only have been about zoning matters but so I'm just asking for clarification if it is a zoning matter doesn't the state tell us what I thought that was the issue that the state requires that it go to the planning board and then the clock starts so I'm just wondering what control we have over when it's a zoning matter Mandy do you have an answer to that question before I go to Lynn or Lynn if you have I think I think if you go down into let's and into who can introduce there's a section on zoning that might help clarify this answer a zoning proposal um MGL chapter 40 a section 5 if it comes from right there right there yep no you were there so there's a couple of things and this isn't necessarily fully clear here but I I can pull up MGL 40a section 5 but what it says is if it comes from if a zoning proposal comes from the zba the planning board the pvpc the pioneer valley planning commission the planning commission that is our region planning commission um or 10 registered voters or an individual owning the land to be affected by the change those those so I don't numbers two three four seven and eight the clock starts within 10 days so those two three four seven and eight the council is governed by state law and the clock the council basically has no choice but to refer to hearing and hold a hearing itself numbers one five six and nine nine is the charter so the charter is different it's not really state law but we would have to do something we would have to consider it we would have to vote on it um if it's initiative you know we'd have to follow the charter and then we'd also have to follow state law so so the charter one would also almost start multiple clocks in some sense you'd be thinking multiple clock start so one five and six though I don't believe are specifically stated in section five of the general laws and that means for those ones the council can choose to start the clock or the council doesn't have to start the clock and they could refer to something else to start to then not start it I think but we'd have to make sure yeah whatever ones the general laws refer to the council has no choice but to start the clock so I think with a council sponsor we don't have to start the clock we could send it to council committee and say hey decide whether we want to start the clock or whether we want changes or not and then bring it back to the council and then the council can start the clock but with some of these the council must start the clock okay so with the proposed zoning revisions it went to the planning board at the same time it went to the CRC was that because it was massachusetts general law chapter 40a section five or that's just what we did that's what we did and we started the clock with that but we didn't have to so I think that may be what some of the counselors are getting at maybe it should have just been referred to CRC you know this is a very complicated issue I would suggest that it be listed along with all of the other documents that we've gotten because I can and I can wait until the next meeting to talk about this but over the five years I can point to various examples of different situations where it was either referred committee or it was referred directly for hearing and I think we want to make this section of the bylaw a whole lot clearer about what has to be referred based on mass general law and what doesn't have to be referred for hearing etc so I this is a this is a part of this set of rules that we really need to spend some time on okay but may I say to go back up to the the proposed change above I would still argue this is where we need to clarify that but even if a person is doing zoning they should be proposing something that could be adopted even if it isn't starting a clock or anything that that a committee should basically always start with something that could be adopted without changes. Mandy Jo I generally agree with you but I going back to the beginning of this council when it became apparent to me that a group of counselors that constituted a quorum of CRC were meeting about rental I vastly forced all of you to come forward and referred it back to CRC for development at that point you didn't have a fully fleshed out bylaw so and yet I think CRC has done a phenomenal job on we had we had a bylaw that was in a form necessary for adoption it was not something we recommended adopting right we had a bylaw in a form if you go look you will see a proposed bylaw there it was not something we said here is a proposal that you could adopt we don't recommend it we recommend taking that fleshing out and then I also do the waste hauler one and and that's been another one where a committee has spent a lot of time anyway let's let's make this a centerpiece of our agenda on at our next meeting waste huller was proposed in the form of adoption as well yeah so I'm going to point stretch code okay good stretch code was not and that was in some sense a problem yet we had to go to the lawyers and say who's going to do the language and then the stretch code sponsor found the the proposed you know the the model language and said just use that yeah so we could have said when that when that was brought forward because I could have said you have to bring this in the form final final for adoption and the sponsor would have had to come back earlier than rather rather than at CRC but right so it's so where we are where are we with the suggested change in for us this just to come back and talk about it again I think that's where we are yeah only 11th of October do you want to move on it's 11 23 or do you want to leave it yeah I guess what else is left can we get an idea I guess I also before we set the agenda for Monday Mandy Joe we need to understand where we are on Medicare okay there's a lot left so we're not going to do Medicare for all on Monday doesn't sound like you were referring to that what I was referring to with scrolling through on there's a lot left I was just curious what was there totally not a response to no question no Lynn's question doesn't belong in GL because it's an agenda setting question right so if there's a proposed resolution by I guess tomorrow before we post the agenda then we can post it with a waiver of the rules well GL has declared one version clear consistent and out of our hands it goes right now the question is whether the sponsors are changing that or providing a potential motion to revise a motion to amend what the actual council meeting yeah and so I need to work on timing with Lynn on that and yeah I can I just say I would really prefer that it come back to GL and not try to amend it in the council yeah that yeah that's probably a good idea shit it has to be formally referred back no it's not a referral if we propose it again it like I said it's not something for I don't think it's something for GL's discussion right now it's something that sponsor and Lynn have to discuss about agenda setting okay I'm gonna assert my right as chair to call for public comment so if there is anyone in the audience who wishes to speak please raise their hand of course there's nobody there so now public comment is over at 1126 so we have four minutes shall we end early we're going to save ourselves four minutes and thank you all very much thank you adjourned thank you and and Athena I need to get working on that memo to you you want it by tomorrow right today