 Seeing the presence of a quorum, I'm going to call this meeting of GOL to order. It is 1031 on Wednesday, October 6, and we are being recorded pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021. This meeting will be conducted by remote means members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so via zoom or by telephone, and I will provide instructions if needed. 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 by technological means. I'm just going to make sure first of all that all the committee members can be heard. And I'm going to start with Mandy. Present. And Darcy. Yes. And Pat. Present. And we have a guest this morning, Andy Steinberg from the finance committee is going to be joining us for the first part of our meeting. So Andy. Just to confirm, you can be heard. Thank you. Okay. And again, Emily, thank you for being here. I'm going to put the, I'm going to put our agenda up on the screen so we can look at it together. So this morning, what we have on our agenda is we're going to start with review selection criteria for FinCom. We're going to discuss interview questions. And hopefully if we can come to some decision about those, and we'll briefly briefly review the timeline and make sure that everyone's agreeable to that. And then we have a surveillance technology bylaw that we're going to consider. And then we have some minutes. We have September 29 we actually have two other minutes and we'll deal with that when we get to it. I have no items unanticipated. So we're going to go through this in the order that it is presented here. So I'm going to begin by putting up on the screen. The, let me put this away. I'm going to put up the draft document that we had last time for FinCom selection. And I had sent an email to Andy who is chair of FinCom and asked him to look it over and he does have some thoughts and comments. I thought we would start with that and then we'll go to the document and see if we can reach some consensus and vote on it. So, Andy, if you'd like to begin with your thoughts on the document as it stands at the moment. Well, thank you. You're inviting me to be at the meeting to say this in person I had sent an email to George about my reaction. You know, I think that the first sentence, the first one is strong and I'm actually fine with all of it. But it was sort of what I thought was missing as opposed to what was there. Because I do think that a strong base of season members is important and when I look back at the people who have been in the position of the resident members in the past. Mary Lou, Bob Hagner, Bernie Kubiak and Jane Shuffler. And I think that they have all contributed in the way that we thought that they would. The one thing that kind of struck me is that when I was looking at the CAFs coming in and thinking is there anything else that I would suggest that I'm going to try and see if I can. At least one thing by being full screen up. What I had said to George was that I felt that what was missing is the need to make sure that there's a commitment of anybody coming on the committee to complete a full three year term, even if they're being appointed for a partial term. And that I had made that statement was because the one thing that I think that we have experienced in finance committee whether it be on the old finance committee from the old form of government or the current finance committee to the council is that the issues are complex, the rules of municipal finance are complex, and that a budget cycle is really needed to even begin to understand the full complexity of how municipal finance works, and that not having people who are committed for the long term becomes a problem. And a second aspect to that that's then very important is that there also be an understanding and a commitment to being available to attend. All meeting in with a reminder that they are going to be in person beginning in January, and that that we have times that the committee is meeting during the day, and that that has been agreed to by the entire committee. It's going to be possible to shift it for people coming in. So that is a criteria, as you're looking at people that it's worth asking because if it turns out that they're not available to meet at the times that the committee is meeting. I'm not sure that it's a reasonable choice. And the last question that I wanted you to at least think about, because I certainly was thinking about it is the question of the length of residence that somebody is heading the community, and the knowledge they have about the community, because I think we're trying to do by bringing in the, and this is based upon our experience again, bringing in the finance committee members who are not counselors is to either provide a knowledge that is not there amongst members and contributing that can give some examples of that, or a second and I shouldn't say or and the second piece which is a knowledge of the community and a commitment to the community. I was very disappointed that Miss Schaeffler was not able to continue I think she was a really good choice. She had good background in academics that made it worthwhile to bring her in she'd served on another committee on the historic commission. She has kids. She lives in the community. And her reasons for leaving I understand and you know they were personal to her. So that those are that sort of the summary of what I had said to George and what turn it back then. Sure. Thank you. Okay. So, and he's raised three issues. First of all, just a slight clarification that the term is two years. So it's one year for voting members in two years for for non voting members. And then we have a commitment to the full term and understanding of the need to be available to all or most meetings and that the schedule really ramps up in April and in May. And then knowledge of the community sort of, the length of residence in Amherst is the three things that I'm hearing from Andy. Andy, am I missing anything else before I turn to other comments. That's the major one. I did think about one other and then decided that it was not a factor and that is the question filling terms midway because fire normally at the end of the budget season bringing somebody in during the budget season has an additional challenge to it. But after thinking about that one a little bit, I decided not to raise it as a separate issue because I didn't feel strongly about it if we were addressing the other points because if you have somebody who has a multi-year commitment that will even out and the benefit of bringing them. I was thinking of the fact that persons to be joining the committee right at the time were changing council members and that we're also in the midst of working through the budget guidelines questions which was the other heavy part of the year. You know, I think we'll just deal with it and I will have some meetings with the person you choose and bring him up to speed by the council. So that was the other thing. Good. Let's hear comments from my colleagues. Mandy, I think you had your hand up first. Yeah, Andy, I appreciate the feedback and the thoughts. I do have some concerns. Number one, we start a new council in January. There's no guarantee that the 2 p.m. Tuesday meeting time will stay the same. And so I don't think we need to be conditioning an appointment on having to have that ability. When new councillors come in, they're going to be able to, you know, indicate their desire for whatever committee they want. The new president, whoever that is, will be able to appoint that. And then that entirely new committee will have to pick a new time that suits every member of that committee. And we were I tremendously hope we're not assigning the president is not assigning committee membership based on prior council's decisions on when the meetings happen. So, you know, it's important for the next three months because I don't expect the finance committee to change appoint times between now and January. But come January, that's all up in the air. So I would hesitate putting it on here versus just asking about the next three months. And and along with that, I guess I look at the best of people and assume if they are applying to fill a position that their intention is to fulfill a full term. And stuff happens. And you just never know. So I, you know, I, I agree the intention to fill a full term is there, but we can't force someone to because stuff happens. And I think we just have to acknowledge that that we need to think the best of people that they always intend to fulfill the term they're appointed for. And maybe for a partial term, I don't know. I think I don't remember whether Ms. Schaeffler's term was set to expire. What we're filling is set to expire Jan, July, June of 2022 or June of 2023. I forget which one she was which cycle she's in. But, you know, you just never know. So, you know, I, I think I would hesitate to specifically put them into a selection guidance. Any other comments that I'm going to turn to Pat? Okay. Thank you, George. I agree with Mandy Joe on the two points that the points that she brought up. But I also want to discuss length of residence and knowledge of living in Amherst. I don't want to see that as part of the selection criteria because that we're looking for people who bring certain kinds of experience and they may have municipal finance experience from Hoboken, New Jersey, and they've moved to Amherst. And that seems like, oh, Hoboken is so different than Amherst. It won't fit. But they may be bringing new insights and new awarenesses to this community. Also, given the divisions that exist, and we can't pretend they don't exist in this town, I have, I think in many ways it would be refreshing to have new blood, not a person who was for the library, opposed to the library. So I really hesitate to want to consider the length of a person's residence in Amherst. Okay. Darcy, any thoughts or comments on any of this? I would agree with both what Mandy Joe said and what Pat just said. Yeah. Good. I think we have a consensus here that what I'm hearing is that what we have, we're going to go in a moment to the actual document. But what I'm hearing is that at the moment, there's nothing that anyone feels they need to add, at least relative to these issues of extent of length of service in town, you know, residence in town. We can look at the handout, which does talk about the commitment of time. And I'm not sure I'm not hearing anyone saying we need to say anything special about, you know, you need to commit the Mandy's point and the point of the rest of the committee seems to be that that's just assumed. And of course, part of what we'll gauge is the best we can gauge it is in the interviews, the level of a person's commitment degree that they seem to be engaged and knowledgeable of the process, which is why the interviews are so important. So what I'm hearing is that there's nothing for us to add based on what Andy has presented today in terms of his comments. Is that fairly correct? Nobody has some bullet point they think needs to be put in. So what I want to do is turn to the document itself and begin to go through it, make sure we're happy with it and what changes we need to make, we'll make them now and then vote on it. I just wanted to check and I apologize Mandy raised a good point. When does Ms. Schaeffler's term expire? And I just checked the webpage. Maybe Andy, maybe you can answer that because the web page actually she's been removed because she has resigned. And so I don't have the year Hagnar's term ends in 23. Kubiak's term ends next year in 22. And you do know when my guess is it would, I just can't remember right now. Do you know? I'm not, I'm not certain. So I think that I would probably not want to venture a guess on that. If we were to grant whoever is given this term, yeah, whoever's given this term, I assume it would be a two year term. And so they would be would be 2024 for them. So we would have actually them completely spread out 22, 23 and 24. There's one. So all right. So I want to go to this document. What we did last time, I'm sorry, Andy, please. I missed that. Go ahead. Yeah, I appreciate Mandy, your point about the time of day of the meeting. So I guess that when you're back to it, it's really a question of understanding that it is a committee decision as to when to meet and that all committee members who are appointed to committees have to accommodate to a group decision, but not to assume that it's going to be the same as it was. I think that that was a, I appreciate that point that was raised. As far as inquiry, and I don't know how you build this into the criteria because I agree that a lot is based on interviews. But if you have somebody who is applying, who is in the community for a short period of time, or possibly longer, but not with a commitment to be here longer, for example, the university students, since there are set that that is always possible. Then we get into the question as to whether the person has a has a plan that is going to be able to commit. And I very much urging in the screening process that that be a part of the inquiry to make sure that there's at least an intent to be here as there was with Jane Scheppler, an intent to continue to serve. And it not be just something that's jumped into as a transitory kind of question. And because I'm not certain that this process of having resident members, no other committee has resident members. And I'm not sure that it's going to work for the finance committee in the future. But I do feel like it has worked well in the past, which was a question that we were asked last time. And it's worked because we've selected good people who have the commitment and have the knowledge base. The last thing that I was just going to say is that I understand, Mandy, your point about our whoever was, maybe it was Pat, who said about it and used the New Jersey example. Bob Hegner had looked in Amherst for a while, but hadn't worked in Amherst for a while, but it brought incredible insights because of his work experience. And that certainly needs to always be a factor. It's not necessarily finance experience in Massachusetts, but he did have government finance experience, which was made so valuable. I'm just going to point out to everyone that we actually do have a council appointed committee that's composed entirely of residents. And it's been a source of some frustration to many of us, not the work they're doing, which is tremendous, but the challenge of commitment. And I think looking back, just speaking for myself, I would we made a decision not to do interviews because of the time pressure. And I regret that now, because I do think that interviews give us an opportunity to get a sense of the person and a sense of you know, just by asking basic questions. I mean, not I don't think you can ask a question directly like, are you serious? I mean, that would be insulting. But I think if we had had a chance to interview the candidates or if we had taken the time to do so, I mean, there are good reasons why we didn't because of the time pressures. But I feel that we might not have had the challenge we've had with the DAB, because we didn't actually have interviews, and we didn't have a chance to just sort of see the person and and just talk to them. We appointed people without interviews. So that's just a little lesson for me, that I take away. But we do in fact have a committee that is composed of residents that is appointed by the council. But it's only every 10 years. So I doubt I can speak for myself here only. But I know I can say pretty much with absolute certainty that I'm not beyond that council. And so can we go to the document? Are people okay? I think it's on your screen. We added last time standard selection guidance for non voting members of the finance committee. My understanding is we added that I don't remember was Darcy's suggestion, but the thought was trying to create a sort of you know, we don't want to be reinventing the wheel every time. We don't want to be doing this every time. I think I hope that GLL has to make an appointment to Fincom that so we may tweak it. That's perfectly within our right. But I think the thought was that this is sort of something we hope that going forward would be sort of the basic template model. And it would probably be a very unusual circumstance that it would get changed. So it could be. So I think that's the point of standard. Is that the point we made last time, as opposed to just selection guidance for? Because I know that I have CRCs, I could put CRCs up. Actually, it was, it was, I'm sorry, it was for interview questions that I wanted to share later in the meeting if we want. But that actually had a date. So we're not saying selection guidance for non voting members of finance committee for this particular day. This is a general document that going forward, we hope we can use over and over again. I thought that was the point of standard. Am I correct or am I forgetting something, which is very likely? Why we put standard in Pat? You're muted, Pat. I wasn't responding to your question, which I dropped. So I dropped my hand from a, I want to ask a question. So if somebody else has a response to you, that'd be fine. Does anyone remember why we put standard in? I know there's other reasons you said and because the new policy allows us to adopt standard. So yes, I think fine. Sorry, sorry to belabor it. Pat, please go ahead. Yeah, my question is, because we're going to be working on interview questions, have we solicited questions from the council? Which is our right policy? Right. No, we have not. We have not. We have not. The answer is no. Chair has not done this. Okay. So thoughts about the first section, I think that we're okay on all that. So if you're not, please raise your hand. Otherwise, we're going to go to section two. And these are the criteria selection of resident members shall be based on relevant experience skills and policy knowledge with an emphasis on municipal and public finance. Qualifications might include the following. And there they are. So anything anyone wants to add is anything anyone wants to take out. It's not related to that paragraph. Then let's let's do paragraph by paragraph. I do want to go backwards. No, I'm going forward. Sorry. Let's not go forward. Andy, any thoughts? Andy, you're here. I assume the committee's okay with Andy offering his thoughts if he has any. Because we have him here as the Fincom chair. I think it's not. So Andy, is there anything that either in the wording or other bullet point that you might suggest? Go ahead. Again, I don't think that I I really think you guys did a great job with the criteria as they are on the screen now. And when you get to the if I did an additional bullet, it would be again along the lines of willingness and ability to make a commitment of and I'll let you put in a number of years, but I would put in, you know, at least two of service to the committee. I'm afraid Andy, that's going to conflict with our other stated policy. Yeah. In other words, the idea is that we have agreed as a council that every vacancy is treated as a vacancy, every vacancy is treated every opening is treated as a vacancy. And while we do give preference to, you know, prior service, and we take that very seriously, asking in this formal document that someone consider a commitment beyond the two years, would I think conflict directly with our stated policy that, right, so I don't see how we can do that. Andy? No, that's why I lowered the I didn't I didn't say a specific number. I said at least two, but well, see, that's the problem. Two year appointment. Somebody is only able to make a one year commitment. That would be a problem. Not only I think that would be really problematic. And I'll address that it's only problematic if the appointment is for a two year term if the appointments for a one year term that's the only commitment they're making, especially based on our current recommendation. But what I was going to say, which is very nitpicky and just our clarity consistency thing, two of the bullet points have oars. The third one does not do we need oars at all? The second and third have or I wonder if the second and third were supposed to be one bullet point training or expertise training expertise in economics, finance policy or comparable areas or experience interest in municipal finance, or were they supposed to be separate bullet points? And if they're supposed to be separate, I would get rid of both oars. Now, no, I agree the oars. I don't what is the point of yours here? Pat, I'm sorry. And you hand still up if you have a thought. No. Yeah, the orc. I think it should just be anyone I think they should go. I think the idea is simply that, you know, it's not right. Qualifications might include might include. Yeah, so I think we can get rid of both oars and leave four bullet points instead of combining it into three bullet points. I think so. That's good suggestion. Thank you. Anyone else? Garcy, please. I think the original was training expertise in economics, finance policy or comparable areas or experience interest in municipal finance to give it a broader, you know, to have a broader possibility of who could apply for that. So I think that's actually just one bullet point. Like in Mandy Joe, I think just said is that the second and third, I think are intended to go together. Okay. Because those are the areas, you know, the expertise or interest areas. And the other two bullets are different, obviously. I yeah, so you're suggesting that two and three become one and that's where the or would come in. Right. I think that if we look back, we would see that that is actually what it was. Yeah, I agree with Dorsey. That's okay. So the idea is that you could be either someone who has expertise or training in economics, finance, policy, is it what does policy mean, actually? I mean, like policy like forestry, forestry policy or I'm serious. I mean, what I know, right? What is policy? Did it say finance policy at one point? I know I add an extra comma. I'm not saying these are these are right, we're trying to get this is important. It's just for us to be clear, right? And so it could delete policy or we could add fiscal in front of it. So fiscal policy or comparable areas, and then combine and then undelete that or and the delete the and make it so that that's part that third bullet point is part of the second. Yeah. And that's where I'm struggling a bit. I hear that this is what we were thinking earlier. But you're talking about training or expertise. And then you're talking about interest. And that's another word that bothers me because yeah, I'm interested. I'm very interested in municipal finance. I just don't have the time to devote to it. So the fact that somebody says, yeah, I'm interested, doesn't mean much to me, but experience, it means something. So, you know, if somebody comes to me without any background in finance, fiscal policy or comparable areas or experience in municipal finance, but says, you know, I'm really, really interested in us. That means that's zilch for me. I mean, because I'm really, really interested in it too. And I wish I had, you know, the background and the knowledge to actually do right. So I would suggest taking out interest and just more experience. That's a go ahead, Pat. I'm sorry, I guess I don't agree because yep. Sorry, Darcy. Oh, I'm sorry. No, I didn't mean to have my hand up. Okay, go ahead, Pat, please. I the only reason I'm on the finance committee, which I think it's my second year, Andy, was because I was interested in municipal finance, not because I knew Jack Bohookies. Yeah, right about it. And so we're, we're talking about, I mean, if a person only has interest in municipal finance, and they've done nothing in the other areas, and not even trained or something like that, I don't think that they would get my vote. Okay, but not having experience in municipal finance is feels okay to me, as long as there is an honest interest, because it may be expanding what they their knowledge base. But you'd see you'd like to see some evidence of that interest, other than somebody saying I'm really, really interested. Yeah. Okay. All right. So you'd like to keep it. I've inserted fiscal but that could come out. Pat would like to keep it as it is. Darcy, please. Um, I would like to keep it. Oh, I didn't. I don't know why my hand keeps going up. Because you raised it. I did not raise it. I don't know. It's really funny. It goes down and then goes immediately back up. All right. So Darcy, I'm going to ask you to raise your hand from now on. Okay. When you want to speak. Okay. No, seriously, because otherwise, I'll be calling on you, and you're going to leave me alone. It's doing it by itself. I don't understand. So what I'm going to do here while sorry, let me I'm just going to take up. So that's what I'm going to do. How do people feel about that? Good. The semicolon be after areas should be removed. Thank you. Spoken like a true G. O. L. My mantra. I wonder if there's like some future, you know, business or career opportunity for us once we're done with this. nitpicking people's work. Exactly. Right. I mean, I'm professional nitpickers. All right. So I hear that this is thank you, Darcy. Thank you, Pat. Thank you, Mandy. This is actually what it probably we did. So fiscal is I think is okay. Economics, finance, fiscal policy or comparable areas. Okay. All right. And then this is consistently available for meetings, particularly during budgeting season, which is normally May and June. And my thought is that these kinds of issues can be raised during the interview process, or we can shape a question that would I hope address this, and a person would have to speak to it. And also it is addressed in the handout. So it's here. It's in the handout. And then I think the interview and interview question could be crafted that would also get at it to address Andy's concern about, you know, whether people understand what they're getting into, and whether they as far as we can tell, they have a sincere commitment to it. Andy, your hand is up. Yes, your hand is up because I just wanted the I agree with the idea that interest in the area of municipal finance can qualify somebody to serve on the committee, but that's where it gets back into the other issue that I have, which is George or Pat, you've interested in it, but you want to get involved, get involved. I think that that's exactly what we want. But as I think that you probably have observed too, it takes a budget cycle to get even an understanding of how the full process works. And that it takes time, which is why my feeling that if somebody comes in, they can't say that I'm going to stay with you for at least two years, and I've lowered it to two for the reason state you've all talked about, that it then gets into a questionable interest, but not being able to make a two year commitment is probably doing a disservice to the committee and not a service to the committee. So I'm sorry, you know, I'm sorry, somebody got a hand up. I'd like to move along if I could. But Pat, please go ahead. Well, I was just going to say Jane made a real commitment and she wasn't able to keep it. Right. And she didn't keep it because it was overwhelming to have a kid and have two twins. And that's not a question you can ask in an interview, but it came up for me and was one of the reasons I thought about not selecting her. And so I think people, this is my distrust, people say what they think they need to say to get something they want. So I don't think that anybody would answer. Oh, no, no, I'm only interested in in the six month position that you know, they're and they, you know, I don't know. And I think her reason for for resigning was legitimate. Absolutely. Absolutely. And we made a good choice. We made a good choice. And you know, she was a superb member. So yeah, I don't think there's any benefit here in going over this. I'm just putting it in there doesn't mean anything. The response is not going to mean anything intentionally or not. I'd like to go to Mandy, because she had a point about the next few. Yeah, please, Mandy. The added paragraph that I know you copied directly from our recommendation seems odd in a selection guidance document, because it's more of a process. What do we do before we adopt selection guidance? Not that is our selection guidance. So I would just delete that whole red paragraph that you added. So we do have a process document which I can dig up. But your thought is that what either chair should do is make sure that this is in the process document. And if it's not in the process documents, we should amend that at the next meeting is what I'm hearing. Is that correct? The council adopted the process document. We have our own document. I mean, it is in the process document. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. You're right. You're right. Sorry. So this just gets deep six. I'm going to deep six it unless I hear a scream from anybody. All right, I don't hear anything. So goodbye. And we also decided to get rid of this. Correct? Yeah, I'm gonna get rid of it. Now, before I do that. And he has his hand raised. I know he does. And I'm going to raise him in a second. I'd like to complete my thought. Sorry. That's all right. Before we do this. This is a challenge that I know Mandy is faced and I have faced, which is making clear to people that there is a preference that it does exist. And they should be aware of that without saying yeah, no, just, and how do we do that? Or should we do that? I mean, in other words, you could just say Kawiat M tour, right? I mean, if you put your face south forward, it's your job to do a little bit of homework. And I guess I'm asking a dumb question. Where is this statement easily available to the public at large so that someone who's considering serving on this body or anybody that we appoint understands that there is this preference stated in our official policy. That's my question. Maybe the answer is, well, they just it's on the website. Just go look it up. Or we could send it. I mean, you could have the chair could send it. Of course, that's, you know, information overload at some point where they get so many documents. Or the thought could be, you know, it's not our job to tell them this. You know, so that's my question. And I see three hands raised and I assume they're all relevant to my question. And I'm going to start with the committee members, then go to Andy. So Darcy, please. I guess I think that it's I don't know. I think that it makes sense to include this because it's related to selection, obviously. And and I agree that if we don't let applicants know, that's, I mean, they should know about this, this piece of our policy. So yeah, I would, I would, I would advocate for putting it in there, just so people understand that we're that that is a factor that we're looking at. Right. No. Okay. That was kind of my thinking at the moment. Mandy, please. Yeah, we don't have an FAQ yet. We don't have a handout that's sort of a brief version of the process that the council just adopted to help people understand, right? And so logically, that would be where this would go to me. But we don't have that. And so I think a selection guidance might be the logical place to put it absent that type of document. However, paragraph that is sitting right here is not what the current process policy is. So if we're going to put one in, we need to copy the section five from the council policy in its entirety and exactly. And this is not it. And so I can't support keeping what's lined out here in. I can support keeping section five of the council policy that was recently adopted in, in its entirety. Yeah, I would say one other thing. Sorry, Darcy. The other thing I meant to say is if we're going to keep it in, we should indicate whether there is a potential reappointment person being considered, because that's the other reason to keep this in. And in this case, there is not. But I think if we're going to include this, we need to include that information because other people won't know. Well, that's, that's where I get a little, it makes me a little nervous. I want people to be aware of the policy, but I don't want to tilt the scale one way or the other. The fact that somebody is up for, or is asking for a second or even a third term, if we stated that explicitly here, would seem to be saying wink, wink, nod, nod. And that bothers me. I guess at that point, I feel like it's up to the individual to do their homework. If they're serious about this at all, they, when having read this statement, the first question they would reasonably ask, I would think, would be, is there someone seeking reappointment? And I think it's on them to get the, they can, they can reach out to us and ask. I mean, it's easily answered. We're not trying to keep it a secret. But putting it in the actual document seems to be sort of tilting things in a certain direction that makes me uncomfortable. I don't mind stating it. I think that's important. So they know, but the next step is really up to them. And they could email the chair. They could just go online and look. But I'm uncomfortable putting it in here. That's my immediate reaction. Darcy, please. I think I'd agree with George there. And I was just going to suggest that, that we might have a heading over it that just is the word reappointments, you know, just so that people understand that that is that's the policy. And I would think that people applying would, would understand that because if they're applying they would, and they are in it for the long haul, they would like the idea of possibly having a preference for being reappointed themselves. Right. They'd like to see those data. So they, it would just be like, okay, well, yeah, I get why they're doing that. So what I'm seeing here is that I would insert, I like the idea of a header, but let's see what people think. We'd say, we basically say, well, let's see what we have here. We have, we don't have headers. We just have, so maybe we just, just read Town Council policy, sorry, on reappointments. And then this would go, actually, let me just do it. This would go below it. And because I hear Mandy's point that if we're going to put this in, it should be the actual policy, not this version of it, which is not complete. And so I'm going to just agree this is coming out. So and then let's see. I think I just screwed that up. Okay. Wait a second. Maybe I didn't. All right. Hey, I'm getting good at this. Okay. So what I'm hearing or I'm suggesting is that we add, I wouldn't even, I don't want me underline it or just say, we just say Town Council policy on reappointments and I would put it in either bold or underline. Okay. So maybe just leave it as underline. Yeah, fine. And then I would just copy and paste the policy. And that's it. And that's the document. And I think that's really, really looks good to me. What are the thoughts of the rest of you? Are you okay with that? So putting in this header underline, adding in verbatim the section five of the council policy document. We've talked about this. We agreed to this last time. We're going to keep standard. Any other suggestions, thoughts or concerns? Seeing and hearing none, I'm going to then make a motion that we approve or excuse me, adopt the standard selection guidance for non voting members of the finance committee as amended today. Second. So we have a motion that's been seconded. Any further thoughts on this? Seeing none, I'm going to move directly to a vote and I'm going to start with Pat. All right. And I go to Darcy. Yes. And Mandy. Yes. Hi. And the chair is an eye. So the vote is foreign favor, none against and one member absent to adopt this as our official policy, our official selection guidance, excuse me, for non voting members of the finance committee. Very good. Let me just do this. Well, I'm just going to close it for the moment. So I'm going to stop sharing and I'm going to put this over there and hopefully I won't lose it. All right. Excuse me while I get my thoughts together. I want to go to interview questions and I would like, as I said, I hope Andy has time if he will stay. And I realize I've not, I'm going to put a document up on the screen for us to look at and basically we're going to brainstorm and if we find we just can't do it because we don't have the time because we do need to get something in a few minutes. We may have to come back to this but I'm hoping that we can do it. So I'm looking for this. Okay. All right. Hang on for a minute guys. Sorry. This is 06. There's a timeline interview questions. Here we go. All right. So this is the point in the meeting where I'll be talking about last night's game but I don't think any of you are really that interested. Maybe Andy might be but finance committee. All right. Here we go. Did you watch any of the dance documentaries? I haven't gotten there yet Pat but I thank you. I know the title and it's on Netflix and it's on it's in my queue. Sounds wonderful. It's better than a game. Well let's just say there are different pleasures in life and this is just a different pleasure that's all. I'm very fond of games. I was very bad at them as a child but I really like them. All right. So this is just something I cobbled together. Partly using my thanks to Mandy just took this recent zoning board to interview questions and sort of just played around with them a bit. None of this obviously is written in stone. I very much want obviously to have us just brainstorm here. So but this is what CRC has done. So notice down below are sort of just sort of some statements about how the process works so that the candidates know that they have so many minutes blah blah blah blah and I thought that was nice and then there's you know if you have questions you can reach out to the chair. So I copy that. 15 seconds to answer question seven. Exactly. So that would be the equivalent of question six here. Right. Currently the finance committee meets from and I'd fill this in and Andy can help us but I just didn't have time to look it up and when you know so please confirm that you have the time to commit to this meeting schedule and I would we can fix the wording here you can trust me to fix it but and that would be basically question six and we don't have to do this. We we can just keep it as a question they can answer it as long as they want. We wanted the CRC wanted to be clear that we were expecting a yes or no answer and not some long explanation. Yeah that's a good point isn't it in a way this is just like raising a flag and just sort of it's not really a question because nobody's going to say no. Right. As Pat pointed out nobody's going to say you know I really don't have I only want to be 100 for three months and then I'm going to go to Deity. So it's really a kind of pro forma thing to meet Andy's genuine concern and our concern that that it could even be have you read something effective have you read the the committee handout and are you aware that and are you comfortable with that commitment and it's really performant away but we're doing our due diligence so you could could be have you well maybe that's insulting to say have you read the the handout isn't healthy it isn't something I agree Pat please yeah but what I wanted to say is I think that currently the finance committee meets once a week or whatever it is Andy I got it in my books for the net or for the next three months the finance committee will be because that's what we're or until January however you want to say that but saying what those dates are now and not having the time limit of the council change could mean somebody honestly says yes and then they can't because we changed the meeting time in January so here Pat the idea is that all it says is currently the finance committee meets twice a month during the year but when budget season begins in April and May meetings become much more frequent yeah um and we couldn't have it as a quite are you comfortable with or can you confirm so it should be a question that's what I'm suggesting uh can you confirm uh that you uh have the time to commit to this meeting schedule that's fine and the idea is that we're not going to have as as Maddie pointed out it's not going to be a three-minute discussion it's basically they're just saying yes and if they kind of look hesitant or they kind of pause that would be perhaps telling but I think it's just pro forma Darcy um can I talk about something else yeah no please unless if anyone has no concern I think we're agreed this which this we're agreed this should be a question which one the number six I don't know what number it'll be in the end but we should ask a question something like this should be part of the interview yes adopted interview questions Pat says yes I say yes I assume Darcy you say yes and fine thank you so yes please Darcy go ahead if you have another question or you want to change or reward something please uh yeah I'm just looking at number three because um it's as it stands just could be answered yes or no exactly this is agree that needs needs work so it seems like it should be um what is your understanding of the role of the fine finance yourself so that at least we don't get a yes or no I agree again our people do they think this is a legit good question will this produce a fruitful you know answer um it sounds good to me and it's it's worded in the correct format so clearly they need to say something other than yes or no um Mandy um yes to your your questions there number three is good to me I wanted to talk about number one okay good well I want to go I understand good this is great I want to make sure that we're agreed with each of these questions so they want to come back to this at the end somebody says well I actually don't like question okay well yeah so it sounds like three is okay and six is okay um all right so I'm just gonna highlight let me see if I can highlight them go ahead Mandy please you had a thought about another one yeah um I'm starting with the first one um yeah you look at sort of unfinished this is always a good question um we've added the please include any experience in in in the CRC questions for zba and planning board because that gets to people who have um who are currently serving on the committee versus and and to those that aren't so I would add um into that list yeah in you know experience in budgets financial planning service on muni service on financial committees other financial committees um and then also municipal finance is a specific thing service on or attendance at financial committee meetings or something you know um and then just municipal finance is one of the I think I put municipal finance after financial planning and before the service one yeah all right so uh involving budgets financial planning municipal finance and service on or attendance at other financial committee sounds kind of weird I'm sorry we can work it but again just generally speaking this seems like a good question which just gets them to tell us about their background and you know and this um so what do you feel you bring to the fin come it can that can make it successful please include an experience you have in matters involving budgets financial planning municipal finance or service on or attendance at other finance committee meetings or finance committees or meetings it should be finance or financial does it if other uh oh no other finance committees or meetings yeah maybe okay finance committees or meetings or meetings okay it's a bit wordy but I don't mind is we want to make as expansive as possible so people don't feel like well gee you know I actually haven't had much experience with that or that but um maybe did with my uh volunteer organization right exactly so it's good um Darcy oh I did not intend to have my hand up all right it's okay that's all right um so our people comfortable with one as it reads um what do you feel you bring to the fin come that can make it successful please include any experience you have in matters involving budgets financial planning municipal finance or service but excuse me finance comma or service on or attendance at other finance committees or meetings it's a bit awkward um what do you think leave it good enough sure for government work okay yeah I I do have one um does this leave out the person who attends all the town council meetings or watches them on Amherst media or whatever and and knows and like studies the town budget and knows every damn thing about it right and I do and um uh you know there's that there's you know I think a bunch of people out there that know a lot of town budget but um and they may just know it by studying it right right right um I don't know how to include those I mean those are the sort of that's that have an interest in it right uh but may not be professionals you know right right so um and that is you don't think this covers that you think this is a little bit too that it's it doesn't really give them the the space to talk it doesn't say invite them to describe exactly what you described they'd feel like well that's not relevant to member one so I can't bring that up and we'd like to make it relevant we'd like to keep you know basically tell us about your engagement in um any experience you could say an experience or interest you have can I yeah go ahead I'm sorry I'm gonna wait go yeah Mandy's hand is up please yeah get rid of the or between finance or service where that red line is and then add a comma after meetings we can add or any other relevant experience you may or any other information you feel is relevant something like that yeah something that's that would be good so here you want to insert something yes so insert or other relevant information let me just make sure I gotta make sure I'm not sure or other relevant or how did I word it before or any other relevant experience and I think the word experience is expansive enough to include what Darcy just described um I would make it too expansive but yeah I hear you I hear Darcy's concern I think it's legitimate I hear your suggestion I just don't want to make it so big that it basically yeah I was out you know putting yeah okay a path I would change this whole thing uh and say something like I would simplify it because I feel like you're leading people down a path yeah and um you don't want your answers or your directions uh in the body of the question why can't it can say what relevant what relevant experiences do you feel like you'd bring to the fincon that would make it successful uh and then you know pleasing I don't know these are the interview questions these are not this is not the SOI we're not trying to lead them down a path but there are things we're looking for Pat we really want people to talk about so there is a certain amount a leading in the sense that if you make it so if they don't talk about if they don't talk about something that we think is important isn't that an indicator that they're not they don't have the knowledge base that we want I don't know but yeah yeah I'll go with the majority of the committee but I just think that this should be simplified okay you think it's too complex and we are kind of leading people in a certain direction and you are uncomfortable with that yeah okay okay I'm wondering if I hear that and we'll come back uh Andy I'm sorry Andy had his hand up and I so Andy please go ahead yeah just real quick I I agree with the direction you're going I lost that connection for a few minutes but I'm back um you know knowledge is the word to consider somebody just use the word knowledge because um when I think about residents who frequently are in attendance at our media in our virtual meetings yeah and then end up conversations with me after I have a lot of knowledge the knowledge is a valuable word doesn't mean you have to be on a committee or have experienced servicing under the committee but you know about it and you can ask well how did you get the knowledge I mean those are follow-up questions you can ask us in the interview but I agree that you want to make sure that you don't exclude people who just know a lot about it and have a lot of interest right so what if we inserted um you could end right there and you could have a separate question um please describe any other service and or please describe any other service and or attendance at other finance committee committees or meetings or any other relevant experience uh any yeah you could do that um separate out the specific question which is basically trying to get at their experience and knowledge about matters involving budgets financial planning municipal finance and then have a separate question about experience on other kinds of bodies involving finance or any other kind of relevant experience what do people think about a separate question so two questions rather than one uh Darcy your hand is up please we are going to share the selection guidance with the applicants right yes we are so um why I mean it seems like we're kind of reinventing the selection guidance in this question and we could just say please please include how you fulfill our selection guidance um and then it would cover they know what the selection guidance is yeah and we could read it at the interview if we wanted to and then we don't have I mean this seems like it's reinventing it um and okay it's up to them to just tell us how they fulfill it I mean it seems like easier than right you know I know I know it's back to that point of kind of leading them you could say expanding on Darcy's thing the please include could be um please reference any experience or knowledge you have related to the selection guidance provided yeah period okay I guess yeah okay okay um I see two paths here in front of us one is the path that we started on that I was kind of leaning towards which is basically specifying specific things that we want them to respond to because after all we're asking these questions to elicit certain we're looking for information and so we want to give them as much guidance as possible so that these answers are fruitful to us um that's one path the other path is it read the selection guidance if they don't read it that tells us something right away and secondly sort of make it broader and this is kind of Pat's point don't be so leading Darcy seems to be leading in that direction too so I see two different ways of going here um this was based on the CRC approach and Manny can speak for herself but my impression was it was more you know it had very specific things they wanted people to to talk about and and and what I'm hearing from at least two of you is um yes we do want them to talk about certain things but we're going to kind of leave it up to them to decide what they want to bring to the for or not rather than specifying it since it's in the selection guidance so I see at least two of you leading in that path um and I'm willing to go that way um but that would mean rewarding this uh dramatically which is fine that's what we're doing um anyone leaning more toward the path I started out which is being more specific sounds like people are more are willing to go in a more general way so let's just try something here and see um let me just so would you start with what do you feel you bring to this income that could make it successful or do you want to make it a totally separate question which is based on the selection guidance um what please let me just start a new question for a moment based and people just speak up here I'm just we're just going to word Smith here with brainstorming we're going to keep it simple keep it short based on the selection guidance what do you feel you bring to the fin com it could be as simple as that yeah with that you know based on so just up here let me get rid of this for a second okay um based on the selection guidance what do you feel you bring to fin com could just be as simple as that what do you feel you bring to fin com that can make it successful and I would just take all this out I'm not going to do it actually yet but that's what I'm suggesting what do you think of that so the idea is yeah I'm sorry feels okay to me yeah I thank you Pat I think this is in your spirit Pat of keeping the questions as simple and direct as possible not being leading and Darcy's point that it's in the selection guidance and if they start talking about you know uh how they lead a Boy Scout troop or they uh you know like to go mountain climbing um that would tell us something right away okay Darcy your hand is up oh sorry all right I'm just I do my job just so we have three questions so far um and I wonder about three let's go back to that I mean I think it's okay I was pretty open and I'd be interested to see what people say but that would be an interesting question to see how people answer that so I like that so we like three how about two are people this is a one that's commonly asked um it's generally I think a good question um you know um do people want it do they think it's useful or do they want to just um it has been a very interesting produced some very interesting answers in CRC in CRC interviews for planning board and ZBA um I support the rest of the questions I don't have any changes to them okay so yeah I agree you're saying that it's been fruitful I mean interesting is a vague word you mean fruitful you learned you learned some interesting stuff right no good good that's good so one two three um four yeah I have a comment about four please it seems like um that I don't know why it's phrased like that because what what's what are the possible answers yeah you know I feel angry you know I feel I'm insulted by this all the different feelings that I'm talking to my two-year-old grandchild about but anyway um it seems like it should be rephrased so that it's like um non voting member or you know right uh residents are non voting members um how do you well I guess it's kind of like yeah that kind of thing is sort of like um what how can how can or maybe just like how can a non voting member contribute or something like that and obviously we know that non voting members contribute a lot um and uh so I don't know what we're getting at there are we getting at that that you know like they're going to to somehow throw a monkey wrench in the works or right exactly it's badly worded badly worded um so yeah I guess um yeah what are we trying to get from this um is how's it different from three um you know uh because obviously your role on fincom is again it would tell us something if they if they're not aware that they're not a you know so I wonder if four is even needed yeah I think that people you know like if they're angry about the fact that residents are non voting members they're probably not going to even apply to do it right you know and though uh you know they've already accepted that they're going to be a non voting member I guess I just feel like um you know we might want to add that to number three just add it as a what is your understanding of the role as a not as a non voting member of of the income I wouldn't say as a non voting member I think there are two different questions yeah they are yeah but why don't we just take it or something maybe like what tensions does being an advisory member of the body um might what tensions might it bring up for you I don't know why we yeah what I think Darcy's point is a good one what are we actually trying to get with what's the point of this question the others I think we're pretty clear what we're looking for this one just seems you know unless we get more hone it it's kind of like what's the point um what are we going to get from them that would be okay deleting it completely I think Darcy makes a good point I'm also okay with adding a phrase into number three understanding of the role of the finance committee and us your role and your role as a non voting member yeah that would work let's just put it in for a moment okay and presumably the answer to the second part of that is the same answer that they'll give for number one basically what what they bring right yeah yeah but there's difference between the role of the finance committee in in town government and in decision making that feels different to me somehow yeah those are definitely two different questions the role of the finance and the role of a non voting member on the committee are two different questions we could combine them into one like it is here now I like that yeah um Darcy your point that somehow one and three are connected um we're looking for something very different in one and if the question isn't clear enough and your question suggests or your comment suggests that it's not do we need to go back to one and it's because I take it with one we're really asking them to tell us about your knowledge and experience base relevant to finance matters that's what we want and if they don't that's telling but hopefully they will and that will be even more telling are people comfortable that one is clear enough that people will do that they'll understand that what we want here is your knowledge base and experience base um relevant to the selection guidance what we want in three is your sense of what you think the role of think come is generally and your role as a non voting member no those are different questions yeah I think they're good yeah yeah I don't really like mixing the two and three because um we it'll be difficult in an interview setting um because they're they're completely different questions to get them to respond to both of them unless you'd prefer a separate question if we have it at all you'd prefer a separate question which is what is your understanding of your role as a non voting member yeah and again we're back to the point what are we trying to elicit from that question you know other than just you know vague bromides or else somebody suddenly just jumping up and saying you know I so resent that you know but that's silly so yeah I think I think I want to elicit as somebody saying something like um you know I have a lot to contribute as I said in number one I you know if I'm on the committee I expect that my my opinion is going to be respected um it'll probably be mentioned in reports one way or the other and that I'll be good to hear that would be good to hear or not you know um quickly three um show of hands want to leave it as it is and and the whole sentence or do you want to so how many would prefer to which way are we vote what is your understanding of the role of income period no or what is the understanding blah blah blah and your role as a non-voting member how many of you are comfortable with exactly that the the latter which one the latter the one the last one you just spoke yeah yeah I know what latter means sweetie so yes or no I'm going to take it as it is it doesn't matter to Mandy I think it's works for me works for you Darcy you prefer perhaps separate questions or is it okay yeah I'm afraid that it will get they'll somehow get mushed together nobody's going to say it's going to really piss me off because why would they apply why don't we just split it up into two just separate questions what is your understanding of the role of the finance committee and then question four what is your understanding of your role as a non-voting member fine yeah okay okay all right I was hoping to have just five questions but good there's one two three four five 15 second answer okay sorry I did I always do that okay we're just going to take this out so what else would you like to know excuse me what else would you like us to know about you that makes you a strong candidate for the finance committee okay you know maybe that's where the Boy Scouts are mountain climbing or you know studying Sanskrit would come in handy and then finally currently the finance committee meets twice a month during the year but when budget season begins all hell breaks loose so can you confirm that you have the time and commitment to this absurdly demanding meeting schedule okay and that's just a flag and good you'll have three minutes to answer each question one through five you'll have uh what the six don't do not put yeah absolutely and you will have eight point three seconds to answer question number six don't put that at all people aren't stupid well we have had experience now well actually so pat we have had experience with questions like this that they go on for three minutes yes which is well then you don't want them you don't want them why don't you just say we just need a yes or no answer yeah yeah instead of 15 seconds i hear you okay okay pat doesn't like that so we're gonna take that out i don't want unhappy committee members you will have up to three minutes to answer each of the questions i think i'm just gonna leave it at that and if somebody we had an experience the last time i'm not gonna name any names um but we had a candidate who just really liked to talk and went on and on and on and george ryan no i'm sorry i i said a candidate and i am the chair so i get to speak more than i know swede i just like teasing you i know you do as painful as it is to me that's all right i just smile we just have to change the references to crc to yeah i know exactly right questions will be asked by members of the gol committee all advocates will answer each question after it's asked in a random order determined by the gol committee chair i want to make sure i understand that all applicants will answer each question after it is asked i thread bandy please what what i do is in order to not have the part like if you three can four candidates and you ask the first question one two three four and the second question candidate two three four one they're always responding behind the same candidate so i mix it up i mix the order up so that everyone well as many people as possible go first go second go third go fourth but they're not always responding behind the same person yeah that's good i hear you i make good sense to me that's what that's what that means exactly all advocates will answer each question before moving on to the next question that's very clear if you have questions please contact pat the angeles at the angeles about time yeah it's about time and you know preferably and give her phone number as well okay so we have a document in front of us and it is the geo interview questions for fincom applicant interviews i'm going to take away the word draft and i am going to um try this happens oh okay accept all changes so um and i think you would like me to write this out right i use fincom because i'm lazy so i will go back and make those changes i'll make some of them as i speak um as you look this document over while i make these changes any other concerns i'm sorry let me get this out of here let me make this look the way it should look um and mark at the end of question three three so let's do this what's your understanding the role of finance committee and you can say adopted october 6th up there thank you october 6th 2021 and um anything else that you see um uh can i make the motion uh i just want to make sure we got this right uh but yes go ahead make the motion we can still go ahead mandy please i move to adopt the interview questions for finance committee applicant interviews as amended at today's meeting second we have a motion it's been seconded any other let me get rid of all the highlighting because that's no longer relevant um and uh and he has his hand up handy please yeah um i haven't been participating but i've been certainly listening very watching very carefully i think you guys have done a great job i think this is a good set of questions um so what i'm just going to say is uh sort of uh maybe as you go into how this plays out i think that the two things that i probably would be most disappointed about is if we end up with a member who is um not really thinking about seriously um serving for significant enough period of time to encompass that two years we were talking about for example somebody who's uh in the community on a temporary basis and does not um if we kind of that gets missed the other thing that i would be concerned about is if we end up with somebody who joins the finance committee because they are um wanting to use the platform to advocate for one particular program or interest and um are not prepared to look at the whole balance of demands on limited finances just really what makes this such a difficult topic to begin with um you uh um you have to look at all needs and not just the need that you're advancing personally for in order to really come up with something that's going to be a balanced product in the end result and i guess i'll throw in one last piece is that you've not at any time talked about the charter and the chart and how the in the what the charter says is the role of the finance you know the the half the budget process works because of what the charter drives the town manager proposes a budget and what the role of the finance committee in the council is in dealing with the town manager's budget and i think that you're fine with that in the way you phrase the questions because it really gets into the whole question of what's your understanding of municipal finance uh but i do hope that as you're doing the interviews you're looking out for those kinds of things so thank you andy thank you and thank you for your time helping us this this morning um i'm we're about to vote but i'm still making a few minor changes as you can see um but there is an issue with question two which at the moment is not in english um would you say where opinions are in conflict where opinions yeah are in conflict is that is that what people have in mind um so tell us about an experience you have had collaborating with the group particularly where opinions were i guess were in conflict or the decision was controversial yeah in the right place is that okay okay okay do you think that these were in conflict i'm sorry darcy do you think that we should change the order of the question so that number two is just um later on because it seems like three and four are more basic questions and like if i were putting them in order i would put two as four and put three and four before that one because it gets into more detail um so you just placing like it should be the very second question you know um uh does that make sense yes it does so what we have now and i think the order of the questions is also important um because we would follow this order actually we should think what order do we want to follow and we i would assume we would follow the order as it's written here so that's a very good point darcy and i think we would start with number one number two and number three number four would be an experience you've had collaborating with a group particularly where the opinions were conflict or decision was kind of controversial number five what else would you like to tell us about yourself you know you tripped in nipal or whatever and number six finance committee meets twice a month i think the order is good i think it's an excellent point and if you want to save time on the last one you can actually preface it by saying this is a yes or no question or this is a short answer question or something you know i currently think i think can you confirm you can say we could just write um what do you think yeah can you confirm this is a yes or no question yeah in a way yeah i know it's it's it's we're hoping yeah thoughts on that this is a yes or no question is that too please answer yes or no yeah please answer yes or no and that's it don't i think that works i mean they're gonna laugh when they read this but because no but our point again for the public who's watching this and scratching their heads is that this is really simply our attempt to make it absolutely clear um to the candidate what is involved and so there's a point to this question even though the answer is going to be yes in every case okay good thank you Darcy that's excellent um so i've made all the changes that i think i saw um and other than scrivener errors i take it we can now vote on this as presented and so i'm going to start this time actually with Darcy yes and mandy hi and pat and the chair is also an i so the vote is four to zero on an opposition and one absent to adopt these interview questions all right very good um i'm gonna put that i'm gonna stop sharing with that i'm gonna move that over there and now i'm gonna put a timeline up um because i want you to we need to agree on a timeline if we can i want to make sure my timeline is absolutely correct that's always a concern so here is the timeline let's take a quick look at it so um vacancy notice was published on september 14th there have at to the point been no new applicants so we have still only eight in the active pool we did declare the pool active excuse me declare the pool sufficient on 929 i did as you saw contact the finance chair for input on selection guidance oh we do have a question actually oh crap sorry um part of our process is asking the uh council for questions they want us to i know i told you at the beginning of the i know you did pat i know you did um and i'm i'm comfortable with um i'm not sure what i'm comfortable with here i actually will come back to that in just a second why don't you just send off what we just adopted to the council and say if you have any additional you'd like us to consider email them to us that you'd like us to consider but you only have five seconds to answer and do not assume it will be used right now we we always and you know they're they're not always all adopted but but um yeah and then we can go because the interview questions don't have to go off with the so is to the candidate right they can go later well let's see this has to be a week before the interview that is correct so what you're suggesting is that the chair in the future the chair should have done this before we had this meeting and before we had this conversation correct mm-hmm okay but in this case he can still send this out and ask for people to send him um you know any questions they might have and make it clear in that communication that we will consider them but it doesn't mean that we'll add them okay especially if we're intending to interview at our next meeting well that's the problem um that we're not going to have a chance to meet as a committee to make that determination um and so uh to add any interview questions we would have to change this schedule and that's what we may have to do but if we gave a deadline of this friday yeah to council members and then you contacted us each about saying here are some of the questions and we could give you feedback individually i am happy to leave the choice up to george if he gets any requests okay determine whether to add them or not that's absolutely fine well i actually am not um because and i mean this for any chair not just me but any chair going forward it puts the chair in an awkward position and a position that could be abused and i'm not saying i would abuse it but it certainly could be tempting if i had a somebody asked a question that um you know i would like personally to ask and i put it on there um having not consulted any of you uh you would be rightly uh upset and so that's my problem um you're trusting me and i i appreciate that um but i could make a decision that later you would say that just makes no sense to me and i you know um i'm uncomfortable putting questions on this document that are going to go out to candidates and are going to be asked in public that you all haven't voted on and that's what you're basically saying and that's the problem so we add another meeting on the 27th we could try not till november 8th could we do the interviews on the 27th and i and i have two reasons for asking this um surveillance we haven't gotten to when we have 25 minutes left in this meeting and surveillance can't wait till after until the november gol meeting to be done because it needs two readings at the council for passage and so i mean in this council term is what in this council term which i think pat and i would i know he would like that exactly and so i don't really want to see it wait until the november meeting for even consideration and it depends on how many applicants we have at finance as to how long it will take to do interviews so you're suggesting adding one possibility to address both of these questions would be to add another gol meeting a week from today that would be fine too um thank you well it's it's a bad time of year for everybody um well not everybody we won't go there i can make a meeting on either the 13th or the 27th uh i can make a meeting on the 13th and the 27th all right sorry that's all right i need to check myself darcy if you would kindly check and you're perfectly free to say you don't want to do it that's quite all right but we're looking at adding a meeting and the reason we had the meeting is one to deal with interview question problem and uh second is to deal with the technology bylaw problem um and and mandy your thought is that if we wait until october we will be waiting to at least october 20 to act on that um that would still work i mean the council gets two readings and here's the here's the schedule so yeah no i think surveillance if we can act on the 20th but eight if we actually get eight so is back and the pool remains at eight i don't think it will but if it actually does the only thing that will happen on the 20th is interviews and deliberation because five questions at three minutes no the time is yeah yeah you know is 15 minutes per candidate if they take all three okay um i was aiming for a november eight um what if we did interviews on october 27th just we did technology here we did interviews on the 27th that would still give us a chance that would still hit make um the november eight deadline um and the reason i'm pushing november eight deadline is that there is some desire to get the new member on board as soon as possible uh if we can if we can do it if we can't we can't but how about we do um october 20 stays uh you know technology bylaw right october 27 would be um so i would do this let me just write put this in for seven 27 and that would be um interview only interviews only interviews and deliberation yes that's right so on october 20th would be tech finish interview questions and surveillance tech bylaw right right right right so because again i just am really uncomfortable with the chair whoever he or she may be adding interview questions without you voting on them um just bad things could happen and and i don't want that i want you to so and it's partly it's well it's my fault for not getting this out to the council at the time um what do people feel about that so we'd be adding a meeting on october 27th Darcy you haven't said anything um you don't have to but uh is it would you be open to a meeting on the 27th which would be um interviews and deliberation only um i what do you want to think about i i i feel like i feel like there there's not an actual reason for us to have to rush um to um but you know like i'm available on wednesday mornings generally but i don't like meeting every week you know i don't think we should be feeling like we i i get how we there's a rush to get the findings committee thing done so that's fine but um and i don't necessarily think that we need to do everything by the book for this particular set of appointments as far as getting um asking the council for interview questions because we have the ability to say this is a one-off because it's the very first and we started it half you know we passed the the unified policy when after we'd already started blah blah blah i don't i'm not i would not be upset if we didn't solicit the council but um so anyway that's how i feel the the other option if you go back down to the council schedule is if gl has a november third meeting scheduled that could be the interviews we do have a meeting november because that's before the november eighth council meeting um that is correct that is correct um so that would allow us to solicit the interview questions from counselors to discuss it october 20 do surveillance on october 20 do the interviews on november third and that would still make the november eighth council meeting all right um so let me try this without adding an actual extra meeting sorry oh dammit all right let's try this yeah i that's a thought bear with me darsie has darsie's hand up please darsie yeah i'm just asking you know i i guess i don't do people feel strongly that we have to solicit the council for questions because if we already scheduled the interviews for october 20th um i guess i just don't understand why we can't forward with that because i said in public um that we would follow the process and the only reason that um we didn't do the cafs is that we had in fact started it before the policy was adopted but the policy has been adopted and i said to the council at the meeting on monday that we would follow the the new policy um and so i i'm not comfortable with one office at this point um so having said that i think that's where i'm going to have to go um so um can we just uh for the sake of the chair who's who's mind is starting to get a little frazzled here um what mandy is suggesting is that we don't need a new we don't need to schedule a special meeting all we need to do is agree that on number over three we're going to do interviews and vote okay and on october 20th we're going to do um technology bylaw surveillance bylaw right and we will also vote on questions if i mean in all honesty i don't think we're gonna get anything but if we do we will review it and make a decision so uh questions council questions on the 20th and the surveillance bylaw george based on my experience you will get questions yeah fine that's fine i i have no problem of them three pages long that's all right and this maybe that will lead us to i mean that's fine and that's kind of why we do this so that that could change our interview questions um to then go back to the calendar here and i bear with me for a moment um so we voted on selection guidance we have not agreed on interview questions yet that's actually going to be now um october 20th correct yeah and uh so in between those two you need to put solicit questions interview questions from council uh so voting three and four all right so um solicit interview cues right and council and then we will on the 20th we will agree on interview questions uh or maybe just put it this way vote on interview questions um they do not solicit the so is now yep okay so we'll select some guidance so that's let's just put that date today is the sixth um we can i can start soliciting but the deadline for them that's so i deadline would now be um around october 31st october 30th 29th something like that let's say the interviews are november third oh wait no sorry if the interviews are november third the deadline somewhere in the 23rd 24th yeah because they have to be posted the 27th yeah i mean i can even i mean they're gonna have almost two if they have two weeks that's more than enough yep but keep in mind when is the absolute deadline then we said the absolute deadline is when i actually when athena actually puts the so is and their names up yeah so that would be and that has to be by the 27th all right we need them before the 27th right but that's under the policy they'll have to be on the website by the 27th um and the interview would be november no no sorry sorry sorry it's all right and the vote would you our vote would be also the third yeah it's gotta be right and the council vote would be you have it not october sorry sorry um yeah thank you and the council vote is november eighth um all right good so that is that um all right are you still unsure about the soi deadline yeah i just well the sly deadline well no actually let me just think out loud here um is um yeah that could we could push that a little later because if i'm going to post them on the 27th um i'll play with that but it's some somewhat in that period um okay okay we still make the number eighth vote and number eight council decision that's great okay all right um i'm going to move that over as well um and stop sharing all right we need it is now 11 12 16 and we do have a set of minutes to approve and we have to make a decision about surveillance the technology excuse me the defense technology bylaw and um i appreciate the sponsors forbearance this took obviously longer than we expected but we have devoted now um october 20th meeting to that bylaw and um i don't know if people had a chance to look at the documents um there are substantial comments from the lawyer and there's a memo from the lawyer and um i want to keep in my own mind clarity that what we're looking at is actionability right clear consistent and actionable and the lawyer's memo said this is actionable so there was nothing in what the lawyer sent to us that said this is not actionable the issue now is clarity and consistency um and so a lot of the comments that are raised by the attorney in their document um and this we'll talk about next time i guess this is like a preface to our deliberation um the sponsors have had a chance to to read those comments i don't think they've spoken directly to the attorney i believe it's just you just work with right and i take it you have no particular um motivation or interest or desire to speak to them or to have them present at our meeting can you explain why because i would normally think i would like to have the attorney present i think that their comments uh their comments on the whole are um clear we've responded to most of them um some of them are incredibly invaluable by like notifying us that our numbering of the bylaw is incorrect which you know that's kind of ridiculous um i just have to say that but we've worked on uh we've accepted all of i'm pretty sure we've accepted all of their um edits their their changes except for one set right which one that was because they that one set was they conflicted with water and tension on cruiser camera vehicle cameras right and so they suggested adding it into the exceptions if we intended the exceptions but we didn't intend cruiser cameras to be accepted so we did not accept that change um yeah it's very sure um let me see what else oh they suggested that we have put in a purpose which we aren't i thought we hadn't decided that weren't necessary for bylaws and the severability clause um we have said in our general bylaws that the there's a single severability so i don't think we need that uh either of those two things but we have a purpose available for our next meeting is good and that we were talking about that in terms of clarity and consistency i agree and we'd look at the comments and changes and so just going forward um uh so people know that's where we're at and um the other issues that they've raised um beyond what we've just been talking about that uh make it raise the council and i might even raise them um are not relevant to clarity and consistency is my my take on this so they've raised some other concerns that are substantial but they do not um have anything to do with what we're doing here is that and that's something maybe for across my committee members to think about because that's my reading that while i have um we're not talking about some of those issues we're just talking about clarity consistency yes good that's that's my understanding and there were some comments that that we didn't address because we felt they were more directed to when the manager if this passes the manager's actual proposal of a policy and what should be included in that or what legally needs to be in that and so we didn't address exactly that's not okay okay good um i'd like to go to adoption only item on the agenda for minutes is September 29 but because you have an incompetent chair um actually these other two minutes were in the packets of previous meetings so i'm hoping that that could be used as some kind of you know uh technical whatever to allow me to ask you to uh approve not only the September 29 minutes which are in the packet and hopefully you've all had a chance to read with great care but also the uh minutes for uh what are the dates uh on uh 8 9 September 8 and uh August 25th they were those last meeting george did we approve them yes all right okay i didn't see them in there okay um i will double check that so good um at least that's my notes say that we approved august 25 and september 8th at the last meeting all right then um thank you then i will we have before us the september 29 minutes i've looked at them i have no changes or corrections to make um and i don't know if anyone has any others if you do please raise your hand um or otherwise i'm going to go immediately to a motion to approve the september 29 21 draft minutes as presented second there's a motion made in seconded if i see no further discussion i'm going to go to a vote and i'm going to start with the chair this time uh and the chair says i mandy hi and uh pat hi and darcy i think i'm going to abstain because i didn't read them that's perfectly that's perfectly legitimate um so the vote is three zero with one abstention um and the minutes of september 29 are approved i will get all three of them to um athena and uh we will be caught up uh do we have any public presence let me take a look uh my god we do not okay uh so there is no public present there will be no public comment at this meeting future agenda items we've already dealt with um at our next meeting we're going to do the council questions and we're going to do the surveillance tactic bylaw and nothing i'm not aware of any other i know there was noise made about possible resolutions or proclamations or declarations coming our way but i have not heard anything from anyone and again if someone is planning such things and this is not just to my committee members but to the world at large please try to get them to us in advance of the meeting so we're not dealing with them today before i'm not aware of any so hopefully we will not have any that's it and it is 12 24 not bad again thank you all very much for your hard work today and uh i will see you uh on october 20 before then perhaps thank you everybody thank you athena yeah take care