 We're going to record and Emily's out on vacation this week, so I get to hang out with you guys today. Oh, wow. You're so lucky. Okay. You're forcing. We'll try to make this interesting for you, Athena. Yeah, spice it up. Get crazy. We'll spice it up. Okay. So I've seen the presence of the quorum. I'm going to call this meeting of the governance organization legislation committee to order. It is August 25, and it is 1031 a.m. And pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 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. And we provided if needed, no person, 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. It's going to quickly make sure everyone can be heard. And so starting with Mandy. And Sarah. Yep. And Darcy. Yes. Okay, so we're all here. And we have the honor of the council clerk taking minutes today. So we have basically two items on our agenda and the first and most well, I would say important but they certainly one that we've been wanting to get taken care of for some time now is the ochre process and my attention is to get that done today we're going to start with that. So we have a proposed revision to a rule of procedure 5.2 on public hearings, and then we're going to turn to bylaws for future consideration. And we do have a set of minutes that I've looked at and we can approve hopefully so that's what's on the agenda. And then at the end we'll take a look into the crystal ball and see what's coming over the next week, next couple weeks. So at the start, if that's okay with everybody with the product the policy document that we've been working on, and I'm going to see if I can get it to come up on the screen. There is. So that's not what I want. Everybody see that time policy and making recommendations is that clearly on your screen. Yes. And I'm going to close this window. So if you need to intervene just speak up because I need to see the whole thing and it's picking up my entire screen. So what I was going to suggest but I'm open to other suggestions is that we go through this one last time fairly quickly, I hope, but making sure that we have covered all possible objections or concerns. And making any changes that we may need to make. I actually get this ready for track changes Iran so if we need to make changes we can at the end my hope is that I will then accept all changes and clean this up, and that will be that. So, unless I hear objection I'm going to start. What I did last night is I just sat down and typed up for myself, the kind of summary of what this document does or says, and I'm going to refer to that and read it a little bit as we go through each of the sections. The first change we've made I don't know if Darcy was here for that I just don't remember now was the title. So the town council policy on making recommendations for town council appointments to multiple member bodies is what we've agreed upon as the title. What we've stated is that this process, this policy basically begins with a notification on the town's bulletin board that there's a vacancy. And in the first section number one we define what a vacancy is. I have a question about that in just a moment but let's first of all take one last look at the preamble. And what we state here is that is there here and has laid out the policy to govern how recommendations are made for such appointments that is appointments to multiple member bodies that are appointed by the town council. So adopting uniform policy the council seeks to assure the public that council committees will be consistent over time and uniform policy will also clarify for applicants or current members who wish to continue to serve, provide clarity. I would just say that it should say council committees recommendation policy will be consistent over time. I'm sure probably the council committees. Okay. Recommendation policy on capitalize that will be consistent over time, because the point I take it Darcy which I think is a good one is that the whole point of this is to make sure that each council committee follows this, this policy and set of procedures. Yeah, I, I still, you know I've already stated this but I'm still uncomfortable with the fact that we tried to confine it to the recommendation policy rather than it, you know, a policy of the whole town council, but let's talk about that for a second because I want to make sure that if that is an objection or concern it gets expressed clearly in the report. This is a policy that is being adopted by the entire town council. Correct. But it governs it governs essentially. Basically the process that council committees follow when they go about making recommendations to the council. So it's a bit of a mouthful but essentially it is a council policy. And it governs the process and procedures for their making recommendations to the town council. So I guess if you can help me just clarify what your objection to, you know, you wish there would be something else and that would be what you know, what it originally said was just town council policy on appointments to multiple member bodies. And I understand Mandy Joe's wanting to change that to make it just state that it's about recommendations which I understand but it's sort of by saying that makes it sound like the council is free to not pay any attention to the criteria that the committees use, once it's in front of the council. And why what's the purpose of doing it at all if that's the case you know it's like, why, why are we even going through this. It's not then, but the fact that we've put in place the ability to look at preferences but to then, you know, decide without, you know, we are bound by the preferences, even within this process. I don't know why we wouldn't be perfectly happy with just saying it's the town council policy, you know, so I feel like it's sort of. I feel like it's an attempt to get around having the policy in the first place. So, you know, this is how I feel about it it's like I don't know why we needed to do that. Mandy. I'll respond I had another comment on this preamble but I think just Darcy and I have a fundamental difference in opinion on what a counselor's vote at the council comes from and what it's bound by and. I don't believe a council can adopt a policy that tells me how to vote and tells me what I need to consider before I vote, I'm elected by the people, I'm responsive to the people, not to other counselors per se in how I make my decision on whether to vote right now. And so a policy as described by Darcy right now that would bind the council and each counselor on what criteria they need to consider on their vote on whether to appoint or not appoint a particular person to me is a is is not just not allowed. That would be ignored even if it was adopted because a counselor, one counselor cannot tell another counselor you must consider these three things and if they meet those three things this is the way you have to vote that that's just my fundamental opinion. And so, that's why to me this is relates to how a committee gets to the recommendation but cannot. And I could never vote for something that says, and once it's in front of the council, you must consider these five things and only these five things and if they meet that you have to vote yes because I don't even think even if that's adopted. The council could make me follow it. So, so that that's, and I think that's just a difference between Darcy and I views. What I was going to say is the second paragraph of this preamble or whatever you want to call it that says it shall apply to all appointments to multiple member bodies as my comment in here says, we haven't yet followed it for dab ever. And so, I would delete that whole sentence. That might give leeway for not having to vote an exception, 10 years from now, although dab in theory is only 10 years but you know we might come up with another one in three weeks. But it wouldn't be specifically mentioned in the preamble then. And so the preamble mentions planning board zba and finance, it would not mention the dab, and it wouldn't have a, all in front of everything and all appointments. I mean, I just get rid of that last sentence leave it at one paragraph and then the debate can happen whenever the council doesn't want to follow it for a random multiple member body appointment that it might have to make. Yeah I thought about this too I don't know what Sarah thinks. I kind of liked it in a sense that it was a strong statement but Mandy's correct that we did not follow it in the dab process. One thought I had was just to add, unless exempted or something to that effect by the town council. Another thought I had was just leave it in. And if a dab type situation occurs, they would be up to the, you know, the recommending committee, or a counselor to bring it to the attention of the council and say we'd like to vote on whether we can change this particular body from our policy. I could see either one as a way to go. I don't know how the others feel whether I like this sort of saying that this is the policy we're going to follow from multiple member bodies. But many is right we didn't follow the dab and I think the good reason. So do you want to put in some kind of, you know, unless do you want to just leave it as it is. I would like to assume that if a problem is a dab type situation arises. It'll be up to either the chair of the recommending committee or some other counselor to just bring it to the president's attention and ask that beyond the agenda, and then have the council decide, or do you want to do it as managed just just take it out. So it seems like the three options here. I don't have any thoughts on that man to your hand still raised. Sorry about that. But I would say I'm okay with adding the phrase, unless waived by the, by majority vote of the town council. Okay. That's one option. And another is to leave it as it is and another is to take it out. Does is there any thought anyone where the other people care. I don't want to put this wording in for the moment but it's just so you can see it. I like unless wave by majority vote. Go ahead Sarah please. All right George I'm not sure if my version of this is old or whatever but I can't figure out how to raise my hand. I think I'm fine with that wording. And I just on on the topic that we had just discussed before this to just to give a little background. When we still had a select board, I mean everybody's seeing the original policy that select board was followed to to fill vacancies and it actually was, I think kind of vague and the way that the select board did it was really as Alyssa said, you know, they, if they saw an opening, you know, they could call up people that they, they thought they were better who would be good. They didn't they, you know, an interview could just be a, you know, a select board member, just calling on a phone, or, you know, if they've met informally like out to coffee, and it was a much more informal process. And it was, I'm going to say was behind closed doors. It was just, you just didn't see the whole process happening. It wasn't like it was necessarily like nefarious people on the outside just didn't see the whole process. It was not very transparent. No, no, I mean it just wasn't transparent. And so, on the many years that, you know, I served on other committees. A lot of the things that I heard from people was that they had applied to committees. They had applied to, you know, certain multiple member bodies, and they never heard back whether their, their, the SOI they had put in or whatever had even been been received and then somebody got put on and they didn't even know. So, when we first did this when, when Oka first tried to figure out how this council is going to do this differently, we set up a lot more, you know, a transparent process and when I wrote up this original ridiculous whole thing about how we would figure out who would be there and now it does seem a little ridiculous. I honestly tried to address what I had heard from people so that when somebody said how how the heck did I not get on, and how did somebody else get on and how do you make these decisions. I tried my very best to make it a fair process so like say you were trying to explain to kids how democracy worked or whatever. This is how you got chosen it wasn't just because Mary Francis, you know, like the red shirt that you always wore right or you gave her a lollipop but just, this is what came out of it and I feel like if we if the council, I believe the majority of the council is feeling that these rules are just baloney and when it comes right down to how we are going to vote. It's going to be who supports what we support as counselors, right and that's that's and that is politics. So, in one regard, you know, I have to say that I agree with Darcy and the fact that I think that we should somehow be bound to these rules that if you were teaching a kid and you want to teach a kid about fairness that this is what you would put down. And then that we are in politics and there's policies where you know we make policy and we, we set policy and that's our job. And so when you come down to brass tax that's not how we lead. And so, that's why I completely understand what what Mandy Joe was saying in the real world we set policy and so when it comes right down to it. It's not responsible to the people who elect us right not to some arbitrary rules, but the the autistic justice written childhood side of me says that I feel like what Darcy is saying is is right. So I just wanted to say that you know if you're going to write a report. The last thing anybody wants is that a committee member to come out and diss the policy that the entire committee came up with. It's hurtful and it's it's bad to do to your committee. So if that could just be written into the policy I would appreciate it so thanks. Good and that's exactly what I'm trying to capture now in my notes so that it comes out expressing the concern that you and it sounds like Darcy also expressing. And I am. So help me here and we can also talk about it afterwards if that's more appropriate to get the worrying right. But what I'm hearing is that both of you would prefer a document that would to a greater degree or would bind or govern how counselors actually go about deciding who to approve and who not to approve. I need, we don't have to do it here but at some point I'm going to need help from one or both of you to articulate this because that's the way I'm hearing it I'm hearing it as essentially a desire for a policy that essentially is, I don't know finding is the right word but certainly it governs or guides these words do matter. How counselors actually vote when you know, you know, voting on a candidate and voting on a recommendation. That's what I'm hearing is that is that even remotely correct or do you want to think about it you could send me your thoughts later and I can incorporate it, but that's what I'm hearing and that's what I would write right now, if I were writing this report. I would send some of your George and I would say guides but I think that it needs to, I would like to make some kind of statement that says, I could include that in the report. These rules, these rules would, you know, would help to. Well, to to. I don't know, I can draft something Darcy had her end up. Sure Darcy. Yeah, I just wanted to say that these recommendations. Also don't bind the committees that are making the recommendations you know we have enough language in here to give wiggle room, you know, like tons of wiggle room so that you can get around that preference language. Pretty easily, you know, like there's so I don't really see how it. It doesn't even if we even it were applied to the decisions of the council it still wouldn't bind them. There's a suggestion to both of you or either one of you which is that you may vote against this, and then issue a minority report and it doesn't have to be anything elaborate but it could just articulate. And that concerns objections in other words basically explaining why you voted no. And I'd be happy to include that in the report. So you do have that option. There are other options we could explore where I just say well members had concern about this that the other and I can do that as well, but a minority report is not, you know, that's certainly an option, and then you would write it. And that would be inserted into the report Mandy, your hand is up. Yeah, our rules don't provide for separate reports. So, whatever. I need to be in one document. No, it would be in one document but it would be, I guess I could head it as, you know, minority. I don't know how would I had it. I just wanted to say it wouldn't be a separate document it would all be part of under our council rules of procedure it would have to be part of George's GL press airs report. But in the introduction I would say, you know, I'm provided brief overview of the document, and then below is is the minority report of those who voted against it or just something to that effect. And it would be in the same document. I just want to, you know, we're going back to having this discussion and okay, you know, and one of the things that Alyssa said is that, you know, a committee works together in order to come up with a finished product product, and that a minority report should not have the same airtime and length and important importance as what the majority of the so as much as I would love to do to do that. I'm also trying to be really careful that I'm not torpedoing the work that this entire committee did and that's, you know, this is a hard place for me because I also being chair of OCA and then having people in my own committee come out and say something that was, you know, that that was devastating right so I'm not sure I don't want to do that. I don't want to have this come out and then be at a committee and then talk trash about it because I think that that's disrespectful to the rest of the members of our committee and I don't think that it goes forward. It doesn't. I don't think it helps us. So I'm trying the best that I can to just say what I can. And then this whole thing will come out. The only thing is the same thing that I guess I said about this when you know CRC did it is that you know, I may vote against it, but I see no reason to add a town Y and torpedo my committee, you know what I mean I just, if my conscience says I have to say no, that's fine but I'm not going to mess up the majority of my committee by sort of airing my grievances at a town council meeting so that's, that's kind of where I feel betwixt in between on on trying to do this. Okay. I'm going to go to Darcy. Sarah you're so sweet and gracious. I need to work on that. But, um, yeah, I, I would like to have. Well I'm assuming, as George said that there'll be something resembling a, you know, the minority opinion on different points of the of the appointment process so I would be glad to help with that if you I want to make sure that whatever it says captures either the concerns, you know, I just would point out right now, if we had a vote, it's potentially could be two to two. So, we wouldn't be able to move. That's right we'll be able to move forward anyway. So I just point that out as it's simply an observation, but however it finally plays out. I will obviously make every effort to make sure that that views are expressed that, you know, are not necessarily the views of the entire committee but but are certainly need to be expressed. So, what I'm going to do at the moment then is, we'll see how this plays out in terms of the process today. But if I do go to issuing a creating report for the next council meeting I'll be reaching out to both Darcy, and and also Sarah. It need be, it sounds like it will be to get their input and whether it will be a minority report or whether it will be simply making clear that their concerns are captured correctly. That's what I plan to do. Is everyone okay with that sounds like. Okay. All right. I just wanted to say that I'm not sweet or gracious. I mean, I try. No, I mean, I try, you know, and I try to be, you know, to be fair. And for me, a lot of this comes out of my trying to be consistent. And I know that when I was chair and it happened to me it, it just, it, it felt devastating it, it felt like I, we had the committee had worked so hard. And then as a chair, it just, it, I, it felt like it messed up every single all the hours the committee had spent and it seemed like a betrayal and I don't want to do that to somebody else. So I guess it's just my trying to be fair. Maybe I'm gracious but I'm, I'm not sweet. Okay, well I'm not even going to go there one way or the other but I do think that. This has not been ridiculous. I want to make that point right away this we've worked very hard on this and I think we have made considerable progress. Though there are certain, I mean I certainly made concessions from some of the things that I felt strongly about related to interviews and so forth. Maybe they're not major concessions concessions. So this, you know, and I think we have come up with at least a process that everyone, I hope will agree to. If we as a committee as a council vote majority to accept it, then every committee going forward will have to follow at least this process. So for instance, in terms of declaring a vacancy in terms of conducting interviews in terms of requiring SOIs in terms of creating questions in advance, which is something that I've resisted, but I'm willing to go along. Because I think that that's there's a sense that this is needed. So, I think a lot has been accomplished here as difficult at times as it's been. There's still, I think are some differences as we've seen already about sort of what the overall effect or purpose of this policy is, and that is something we can certainly capture in the final report and certainly can be discussed at the council level, because it's certainly possible that other counselors will agree with Sarah and RC that that this is really not accomplishing what they wanted. And so I don't think necessarily that you will be alone in that view, whether you'll be the majority I don't know, but that position needs to be articulated. And so I think, aside from that, that we actually have accomplished a fair amount. And as to your point Sarah transparency, we can tell people, this is the process this is how it works this is where it goes. And as for the crucial issue of, of reappointment, well we'll come to that in a minute. When we get down there. But everything else I think this is pretty locked in. And in the end think that that's just process and doesn't really matter. And that's certainly something that that can be put in a report or you can talk about a town council but I want to push back a little bit against your comment, Sarah that in fact what you did on Oka, and what Oka did has is really seeing some fruit. And, and I think real fruit. So, I think that's important to say. If we can continue again please raise your hand if you have any more to say but I think the preamble now on the title, Darcy, please. Yeah, I just. The first paragraph only pertains to certain multiple member bodies that appoints a planning board zoning board of appeals and non voting resident members of the account finance committee. So that sentence in the second paragraph. I don't think we want to allow those committees to wave the policy. So can we put something in there that indicates shall also apply to other multiple member bodies. Unless waived by the majority vote or something like that because we don't want to waive it for our, you know, charter required appointments. Right. I think the language here so so the first sentence says such as so it's not all inclusive, but it mentions the ones we do yearly pretty much. The second paragraph would require the council to vote to waive it even for something like the planning board appointments, the way I read it. Appoints members to certain multiple member bodies, such as the planning board. So certain implies that we don't do all because the town manager does a certain he does most of them right but it that suggests instead of such as could you say would would including be better for you. Yeah, including instead of such as right including and then the second paragraph should say the following policy shall apply to all other appointments to multiple member bodies made by the town council unless waived by the majority. I, I guess I don't see, because all appointments would include planning board ZBA and finance committee, as well as other ones that we make which sometimes randomly comes up like this DAB. Right. So the second paragraph would discuss others. I guess you're you're trying to connect can I get clarity you're trying to say you don't even want the council to be able to waive it for planning board appointment, the, the, say CRC couldn't waive it on its own. Right. Council would have to. Right. And you don't want that. Not even the town council that will change its own policy right. The council can always change its own policy so it could always waive it for planning board. So, I guess I'm saying, yeah, that I don't want this in here that that this policy can be waived for those major appointments. Easily, because we have that power anyway so why would we put it in here we're just put which we're just putting this in here because of the DAB. So that sentence is all about that we can, it also applies to other appointments to multiple member bodies made by the town council, unless waived by the majority vote, like DAB, or like something new that might come up. The first sentence doesn't just just states our authority to make appointments. The very first sentence it doesn't say anything about the policy itself. Although that's the second sentence herein is laid out the policy to govern how recommendations are made for such appointments. Right. I guess, to me this last sentence just reiterates the second sentence of the first paragraph but then says, but hey, the council can waive it because the council can always waive its own policies by rescinding the whole thing. Right, but aren't we putting that sense in just because of because we're worried about some other multiple member body that eventually we might have to make appointments to, and like the DAB, and it might be in those circumstances. It doesn't make sense to go through all these various specific steps that we've agreed are appropriate for the other bodies. And so this would allow them to do that. But Darcy's fear is that well you can use this then to do it for ZBA and planning board, etc. and manage responses but we can do that. I always do. Let me give a situation where you know and I want to say I'm not advocating for a regular meeting of this for typical appointments. But for example, we, as a council extended the appointment by essentially reappointing to associate ZBA members for three months and two months until what they were hearing was done. We didn't make them interview we didn't make them do SOIs because they didn't want to continue on for long term but they were in the middle of a hearing process. And if we adopt this policy in theory, if we don't waive that they'd have to do an SOI and an interview for a simple two month extension. You know, that's just another example of where a council might say hey, because anytime we extend we're actually technically appointing. And so there's there's I think, oftentimes or ZBA now has one to two associate members open. I fully intend to follow whatever process is either adopted or if we need to, I'm going to start as CRC chair trying to get those at least people applying to them. And if something came up like the DAB where ZBA was having problems getting quorums because so many people were gone and someone had an application. And we wanted to do something quickly temporarily. We might as a council decided make sense to waive it on a short term basis for an associate appointment to the ZBA for example. I, I go with the, I get what Darcy is saying but whether we leave it in there or out there, the council can always waive it whether or not we expressly say it no matter which appointment we're making. And I think the statement is has this the force of strength of saying I mean certainly from my perspective that this would have to be an extremely unusual circumstance. And again, maybe this isn't strong enough for Darcy but you know the idea that somehow members of the council would want to just waive this entire process, because they want to sort of like, like, you know, packing the Supreme Court, they want to put in their preferred candidates and that would be intolerable to me and I would like to think it'd be intolerable to my colleagues. But if it did happen would be the voters that would, would hopefully exercise their, their, their, their franchise and carry and carry out the execution of those of those counselors through through the democratic through the poll. So, I guess, I don't know Darcy I know if this helps or not but I like keeping it in because it does say this is the policy we shall follow. But it does give a little bit of flexibility that may be needed, and was needed recently for DB, and as Mandy's given us some examples where it might be needed, you know, in the future. I wanted to just throw, you know, said let's just skip this entire policy and just, you know, bring somebody to the council and vote on them without any extenuating circumstances. That would be outrageous. And I would think most of my colleagues would share that. And I'm not sure you could put that into a set of policy document. So, I don't know. Is that convincing to you or would you prefer that we could just drop it we can take the entire sentence out. Take out the, take out the new language because, like, we all agreed, the council can, can, you know, wave a policy by majority vote anyway so we put this in here it, it seems to negate the whole darn thing. You know, it's like, okay, this is a policy but we can wave it. And I'm going to call Alyssa here which is, and even Kathy sometimes which is, you put it in there so people don't forget you can, not because you're encouraging it right like this was, as we sat on the rules of procedure, it's like well it's in the charter and everyone was like well put it in the rules too so you don't have to go 12 different places. That's my challenge, my channeling of other counselors on why it might make sense to leave it in. I mean, it undermines the whole purpose of doing this is that we're trying to make a consistent policy and I guess. Okay, so you feel it sort of self undermining self. Yeah, I don't know. It's our policy but you can wave it. Well, it's, it's there because, first of all, it's, it's making a strong statement that that this is a policy we intend to apply to all appointments. And it's and the proviso unless is there because there could be circumstances that we've already mentioned, where we make sense for the council to do this so. I guess the third option was my original one of my three options was was just leave it as it is with the understanding that if these situations arise. It'll be up to the chair of the recommending committee or some counselor to bring it to the council and ask that we waive it for X Y or Z reason. And so that was kind of your point Darcy it sort of implied anyway. Yeah, I kind of become fond of this now, the way it's stated but I could go back to the, just to leave the sentence as it is. Mandy I think likes the way it stated. I kind of like the way it stated sir do you have any strong feeling on it would you prefer to just have the sentence without this unless clause, would you prefer to keep it or do you care. You know, I guess we can keep it because my my feeling is is that I see the fact that you know I agree I want this to be something that when people come to town council or new town counselors they don't know what to do. They don't know how we do things having something that's an instruction manual is incredibly helpful and if they do if they have something like DAB where everybody's like I don't know do we have to do this. And I think the other thing is is that the way this, this is written and I agree we have all worked very hard for three years to come up with something we could all live with. I'm not going to even say that I don't think it's helpful. I think it's okay the way it is because I do think that it is more instructive to, especially to new counselors. I think that counselors will do what they will with things so I'm willing to let go of that here and have faith. I think it also might be valuable for the public because we will put out an FAQ eventually an appendix or do you want to call it that will be a public facing document in addition to this, where people will go to just get we can send them or they can go to themselves and say, Okay, here's here's how it works. And it might be I think it's valuable to have the public know that we do have the authority to waive this. And so it also makes that point so they say what that you know what happened how come you gotta how come you do this with the DAB. How come you do this with some other bar whatever or with these people are only going to be appointed for two months, and we could say well take a look at the preamble. The right to waive it, and hopefully we'll give you good reasons why we did. And if we don't have good reasons you should definitely, you know, consider finding some other counselors to be representative because they do things for not very good reasons. So I'd like to leave it Darcy if that's okay. We could have a vote but it sounds like it's right now three to one. I'd like to leave it in there. And if you can certainly object if you wish or we can put it in the report but that did you find a sort of self self defeating. Yeah, I stated my opinion. Alright, thank you. My next section they for section number one simply identifies what we what a vacancy is thing which is between a vacancy full stop and impending vacancy and requires that when the vacancy is occurs that certain steps have to be taken. Tom Bolton board. I think the language is fine I didn't have any problem with this does anyone have any concerns about this. The question did come to my mind was the is still not clear to the public, let alone to me. What the actual procedure supposed to be for someone who wants to leave resigned from a body. Sending an email message to Lynn, sending an email message to the, it should be I see the hand of the Council clerk, and my thought was sending a message to the Council clerk would be the appropriate way to do this. I'm not stated anywhere and maybe it doesn't need to be a theater your hand is up please. I'm not sure if it is, I would have to look and see if it is stated somewhere locally but my understanding is that resignations must be filed with the town clerk's office in order to be officially received by the town. Until that happens and I've asked Sue, when the town clerk's office receives resignations for Council appointed bodies to copy me so that I can inform the Council but they have to be filed with town clerk's office in order to be official they have a book of resignations. So, I guess the question to my colleagues is whether this needs to be in this document because, at least with resignations. They're not official until they actually get filed with the town clerk and some kind of an email I assume is sufficient or a letter whatever but some kind of written statement. It might be in the Board and Committee handbook now that I think of it may have been there or in some of the materials that the clerk's office hands out when they swear new folks in. I'd have to ask Sue. My colleagues, do you feel this something we need to get into or not. Or should it go into the FAQ. I think what occurred to me was just what do we do about you know, resignations. Obviously somebody dies or, you know, somebody doesn't seek reappointment that's a different matter, but a vacancy occurs whenever the town clerk but it's here isn't it a vacancy occurs whenever the town clerk receives assigned resignation. So it's here actually so what am I, and the last sentence I would say we should just fix the last sentence and impending vacancy occurs whenever a member informs the Council of their intention to resign. It informs the town clerk of their intention to resign. Because you can submit that resignation for two months in advance right like and so you're going to serve out two months and then be done. That's an impending vacancy in my mind. Okay, I think that solves the problem I'm sorry that sentence was right in front of me wasn't it. So, in other words, that is the one and only and the official way you can't just, you know, telling me at the baseball game that you're putting such and such a body, or sending me an email or sending one to your favorite counselor, or to win. Or even to Athena is not the rule you have to send, you should copy them hopefully. But they know, I mean that's the other concern is they sent a letter to the town clerk and then they don't copy anybody. So the clerk knows, but nobody else does that's not good. So, so it's here. I've asked, I've asked pseudo to let us know, let me know so that I can forward to the Council when there's a council point of vacancy that she's received a resolution. The intention would be the resignation itself you can, you can resign with the date and the resignation but I don't know if I would call that an intention it's that's the resignation letter. Okay. And it is the town clerk and that's it that's what you got to do. And that applies to our appointments as well as to any others. Okay, one that messed that up and I like to think I'm a recently intelligible intelligent person. I think that it's really good to put it in there because I think you know we mentioned it but until you actually resign you're like, who the heck do I tell you know you want to like you said you know you think you would CC and to me it was like, well I'm going to tell the town council president and the town manager like they deal with me and the clerk never deals with me. Well, when you're in that situation I don't think you're always thinking clearly either because if you're, you know, if you're designing it's probably because something else is happening and in your life that's maybe distressing or taking your attention. So I think it would be great to have it there for people to find. Yeah, I would also say, put it in whatever the FAQ is but with with Athena's thing of their intention to resign we could say of their resignation at a future date or, you know, something like that instead of intention. Where is that in the, the impending vacancy occurs whenever a member informs the town clerk of their intention to resign. If their intention was wrong, so we could say of their resignation, effective at a future date or something. Impending vacancy occurs whenever a member informs the town clerk of their resignation, resignation, resignation on a future effective date. I'm not sure we need they sometimes say effective immediately or effective on a specific date but it could be right to just have their resignation, I'm not sure we need the rest of it man. What do you think do we. Well, but then it repeats the sentence before it a vacancy occurs when the town clerk receives assigned resignation. And so what's the difference then right. Maybe impending is just when a member's term expired. So, right. Your thought is like that. Can we just put what that should include can we just include. I don't know with. Resignation should include the, the date of your, I don't know what to be actual resignation and the, the, the dates you're sending it that's, I don't know. Yeah, I think maybe it's just an impending vacancy essentially is when a member is giving when members term is expiring. Yes, regardless of whether that member seeks reappointment, a vacancy occurs when someone has the town clerk gets assigned resignation. That's, that's a vacancy. It's not impending it's a vacancy. And set a member passes away, or members removed from the body in accordance with Charter section. I guess the thought of an impending vacancy is when a member is informed the town clerk that they're going to resign, say in, in two weeks or whatever. But do we really need to get that. Right. I mean, once they send their letter of resignation, they're out, whether it's tomorrow or two weeks or three weeks or whatever. Just say intended resignation. Your thought is they might change their minds. Is that the concern. Well, just puts it in the future. But, and the other thing is, why are we talking about the town clerk when we should be saying the clerk of the council. Because currently the rule is that it is the town clerk who gets these these resignation letters that goes to the clerk, not to the town clerk, excuse me, the town clerk, not to the council. But that is pre town council right. That's true. I think part of it is the clerk of the council is not who swears in our appointments, the town clerk is. And so while we're the ones that make the appointment. The official records of the town are kept with the town clerk on appointments, no matter who did the appointment. And so the official resignation would be kept with the town clerk. And I think it's just a process question there but I still want to make sure that this is clear and whether people bothered by the thought that someone has submitted their letter to the town clerk saying I'm going to resign from this body say in two weeks. And hence it now becomes a vacancy. But then a week later they changed their minds. And say you know what I'm going to rescind my letter. I guess they can do that. I don't know. It seems like it'd be unusual situation to say the least. But does it do we need to get into that kind of level of detail. What's important about impending vacancy is that it essentially identifies that that applies to all expiring terms. Right. That's an impending vacancy so. It's something that we have chairs who have dealt with this in the past you have somebody apply for a position. And you know that the current member is going to seek reappointment. And you know that there is this preference. Nonetheless, this gives you a clear set of instructions to tell them that we treat all vacancies as as in pen and we treat these as impending vacancies so I'm just thinking just say an impending vacancy occurs. Whenever a member's term. I'm just going to put a strike through here for a moment. And I want you to weigh in as to whether you want to change this or not. So an impending vacancy occurs whenever a member's term. Is expiring. And everything else is treated as a vacancy. And if in the rare circumstance that somebody changes their mind. Okay, but we're not going to get into the thoughts on that. George, please. Since I guess we're all channeling Alyssa, I think her nose must be itching or I think that she would probably say that maybe we should put like a reference to the handbook or wherever it is that explains, like what needs to be in resignation letter and who it goes to so maybe we refer it to Well that can go in the FAQ. Remember this is a document for the council and the council's policy, but I'm also wondering George if we if some of us are like hey how come you didn't tell so and so or like why does it I mean, I just think that as counselors we should also know how that happens because we didn't I mean this is just me I'm a town counselor and I don't know if all of us knew exactly what I was supposed to do. So I just think that when we're trying to make these decisions and vacancy decisions. I think it's good for counselors to then be able to look and know what the process is and I could be it could be overkill, but Well this is not a decision if we do this right it's it's simple I mean it's it's telling us what it's telling you or me or whatever the chair is. This is what a vacancy is. And it's not we don't need to decide it's this is what it is. And your thought or concern is no no it's let's carry it out that your thought or concern is that okay. How does everybody else find out about this how does the chair, how does the, you know. Again to that level of detail I guess that's the question. Any thoughts Darcy please. I was going to make a comment on something else. Okay. Further let's come back to you in a moment. I have stricken that phrase and now we have simply vacancy occurs whenever the town town clerk receives a sign resignation from a member of the body. I have a comment about that. Okay, go ahead. That's not the only time when there would be an impending vacancy. I think it makes sense to say when a member informs the town clerk of their, like say, planned resignation, or a member's term is moving away from town because there's plenty of people who leave in the middle of a term, and they know that they're leaving because they're moving away from town or whatever. You know they say okay, you know I'm going to be leaving in December. You know, right, right. And resignation Darcy I like that word planned. So putting that in front of the word resignation. And leaving it in. Sarah's point, I don't think it harms us to put a footnote somewhere in this document that links to the handbook or whatever. It is, which I'm not sure it's been updated since we even took office but at least links to something that that says, I don't even know where I'd put it in the document but something that says committee members, it received, you know, appointed multiple member body members receive the appointed committee handbook, found at x y or z or something. I don't think it hurts. Well, it just adds another but okay, let's let me make a note that we want a footnote link here to the handbook. I'm sending you a link now George. Thank you. But I'm still struggling with these the idea of planned resignation it sounds like you'd like to insert the word. I think it goes to the concern of the resignations not not effective for two months but you know we can start the appointment process now so that there isn't. I think that there's a smooth transition just like we do for the term expiring we start on before there's actually a vacancy because we don't want a two month long gap. But okay. And so if we know someone's leaving you can start that process. If they then renege on their resignation, you inform the candidates but if they don't there you've you've stopped the gap from happening. So why is that not captured in the very first part of this sentence of vacancy occurs whenever the town clerk receives a resident assigned resignation from a member of the body. I guess I see a vacancy as open now. Whereas, if I say to the clerk I'm resigning this position, effective December 31. It's not vacant right now. I'm still a valid member. Right, but it's impending there's an expectation that it will be vacant as of January one, but it's not vacant now. All right. It's like, there's a desire to make a distinction between someone who sends a letter to the clerk saying I quit right now, and someone who sends a letter to clerk saying I'm quitting on such and such date. And the one is a vacancy and the others an impending vacancy. And so an impending vacancy then becomes keeping that strict and phrase and incoming impending vacancy. And then it becomes occurs whenever a member informs the town clerk of their planned resignation, or a member's term is expiring regardless of whether that members together. Okay, I'm still struggling with this but let me put it in here. That's all right. It's okay. I mean this and I'm thinking what's the difference between assigned resignation and a planned resignation. Both of them are documents that have to be submitted to the town clerk. By the way, when I send an email to the town clerk, I can't sign it. I mean, you guys are sophisticated probably you can sign it. So that's a whole nother issue. I would assume that just sending an email to the town clerk, saying I, you know, George Ryan, I have now resigning or planned to resign or am resigning from this body on such and such a date. And then I just type my name, I consider that to be sufficient. Is there, is that a problem. I mean, obviously, the word signed if you want, I mean doesn't, you know, I just wonder technically from the point of view of the town clerk. You know, do they really, I assume in practice they don't require an actual signed letter. I assume just an email is sufficient as long as they can keep it in their records. So, that's the first question the second is, I still struggle to see. So, so Smith is going to resign in two weeks or for a month or whatever. And these point seems to be a Darcy's point is well then the recommending committee can get to work right now, sort of, you know, preparing to fill that position. I guess, I don't see why that isn't just covered by the first sentence, first clause, and I think we're just trying to be inclusive George and if we add it back in we're good and we could move on. Okay, well I'm the only one having a problem here so I'm going to shut up. So I'm going to take this out. I'm going to remove the stricken bit. And add the word planned. And Tom Clark. Okay. Okay, we can go on to the next community activity form. The only change was inserting the word of. I am aware that two members, Pat and Darcy are not happy with the fact that CAFs continue to be treated as personnel records, but other than and we have made. We stated in here that we make the. We'll make a couple of important statements actually it's only two years now. And the reasoning was that it just, it's just too burdensome to have three years and two years is adequate. And it's two years from the publication of the bulletin board notice. So that's how you calculate your two years. So requiring that everyone submit a new CAF, whether they are seeking reappointment or not. And the argument there was that this now alerts town counselors and real time as to who is seeking to be part of the applicant pool. Whereas in the old days. Yes, Smith submitted a CAF, you know, a year or two ago, but nobody's going to remember that. But our current procedure. That's sufficient to be included in the pool. What we're suggesting is what we have suggested and please correct me if I'm misstating this is that by requiring everyone to submit a CAF. Once the bulletin board notice has been put up. Counselors then across the board will be aware of who the various candidates are. So that was the argument for doing that. Now that does mean this thought occurred to me that say Smith, you know, out of the blue submits a CAF. We're going to have to do weeks or, you know, whatever before we actually declare a vacancy and it gets posted on the bulletin board. We're going to have to go back to Smith and say, Yes, I know you just submitted a CAF two weeks ago, but we're going to ask you to resubmit it. I think that's still irritating, but I think it's probably a price worth paying thoughts on that. Is that a correct description of what we've agreed to do is that a correct description of the rationale behind it. And do you share any concern about, you know, say Smith who just submitted a CAF, but unfortunately prior to the bulletin board notice. I think the CAF is so easy now because we require SLIs that I don't think it's it's, it's not asking too much. Yeah. Okay. I just wanted to point that out that that's a possible scenario, and Smith might be somewhat irritated but we would try to explain to you. Okay. Which would be such a good thing to know about someone who's applying for a committee or anything at that upset. I'll let away. Sufficiently the pool. So, I think this is, we just made some slight changes to this, but I think the language is fine anybody have any concerns problems issues with this sufficiency the pool. We cannot declare a pool sufficient for at least two weeks after the bulletin board notices put up. Okay. And we have to declare it by majority vote. We can continue to do outreach, even after we've done that, because the pool is still open. This will be something that's important that we all agree on I think we do the pool will not actually close officially until the SOIs are put up on a public posting. The pool stays open. Section four, excuse me. Yeah, selection guidance. I think this is, I had no problems with this I don't have anybody else does we still spell out the format and the purpose here. We make clear we do not take resumes or attachments. And we do make the point. This is again maybe we want to discuss this failure to submit the SOI by the deadline may result. So it does give the recommending committee or the chair or whoever it is, some flexibility to rescue someone who has for whatever reason missed the deadline. And where is that George. It should be in here. I hope you're getting ahead of yourself George we're on selection guidance and you're talking about SOIs. I'm sorry. Seven. I noticed that. So back selection guidance. Any concerns here I think we've been through this a lot but that input from the body's chair. I think we've pretty much narrowed this down to. If there's any preferred knowledge and our expertise to meet current needs. So we're not. It's pretty specific. The recommending chair or their design is not supposed to just send out a general email saying you know, well tell us. You know, what do you think about this. It's fairly specific. We're requesting from the chair, if there's any preferred knowledge that people happy with this. Okay. Okay. Reappointments. Again, this we've gone over this earlier this is I think an area of some disagreement at the moment. We're trying to basically satisfy both both views by stating that there is a preference. But at the same time, stating that there is no obligation, either for the candidate or for the recommending committee to offer reappointment. And that their current service and experience on the body will be considered as part of the process for making a recommendation. So that's one of the thoughts concerns with this. Again, we've gone through it, but okay. Number six we added we're requiring that there be a multiple member body handout that they're that each of the bodies that we appoint have a handout. And we are asking the chair of the recommending committee to ensure that it's up to date. And available on the town's website. The bodies. The website is actually the official finance committee website the official right so we're not asking that to be a separate that not be listed on the council website but that it be on a town website that's all we want. Okay. All right seven statement of interest. We're requiring this of all applicants. We describe the format and the intention. So, and that they are to be sent the selection guidance. In advance. There will be a deadline. And, and this is the answer to this question this is where the word may is. Right. Yeah, that. That allows too much difference in the way that the committees treat their applicants. So that allows one. One committee. To give additional chances to people that they like. So you would prefer that this state that an applicant who does not submit their SOI by the established deadline will be withdrawn from the applicant pool. That's what it said previously. Either. Either we allow them to submit late, or we don't one or the other, you know, like, but not, I don't think we just say, well, you know, depending on who it is. The thought was there could be some extenuating circumstances, you know, illness, death in the family accident. I don't know. It's granted that they will have had, say, at least to hopefully at least two weeks notice. And maybe they waited for the last minute. And that's on them. It's kind of like student papers. You know, you knew about this for a whole semester. Now you tell me that you got sick the week before it was due. I just wanted to explain, because I was the one that that sought for this. And I wanted to explain if it's not a may, if it's a shall, the policy itself is internally inconsistent. And something else needs changed. And that's why we ended up with this may here for a couple of reasons. As George just said, the applicant pool under a separate section is set to close at the posting of the public SOI. And this says you're withdrawn if you don't submit your SOI by SOI deadline. Those are internally inconsistent and one of the inconsistencies is not necessarily for someone who had two weeks notice. It's potentially someone who submits their CAF three days before you intend to post the SOIs. And then the SOI deadline is that day at noon, say, and maybe you as a chair didn't even look for that email or something yet you didn't weren't going to post for a couple of days. And so then that person who's submitting that CAF, technically within the time period that they're still considered in the applicant pool is no longer in the applicant pool if the statement of interest can't be accepted late, per se. So my goal for suggesting some changes was basically to try and make the policy internally consistent somehow. So, when does the applicant pool close at the posting of the applicant names or at the deadline stated by the chair for when SOIs are due. At the posting, then there should be some sort of little bit of leeway for a statement of interest that comes in late for some reason. I, in some sense, I don't mind which way it goes. It's just, I want the policy to be consistent. Why don't we just say shall be withdrawn. Unless there are extenuating circumstances or something like that. Well, the way given the current deadline being when it's posted officially, the SOIs are publicly put up on for the public to see if we keep that as the absolute deadline, which has a certain kind of logic to it. Well, while there is a deadline for SOIs and people are expected to meet it, if for whatever reason they fail to meet it, it does give the recommending committee and or their design either chair whatever. The opportunity to still keep them in the applicant pool, as long as they get the SOI and time to put it up posted. I guess your concern Darcy is that could be abused by a chair or their designee for somebody that they favor. Whereas if you have this sort of you don't get the SOI in by this date. That's it. And then all we do is go back and change the other statement. I think it's later actually that says that, you know, just take that out. The deadline isn't when they're posted publicly. The deadline is the deadline set by the committee, whatever that is usually set by the chair. And may just allows different treatment. And, you know, I guess one of the policies just to have uniform treatment of our applicants, you know, right, right, right. I think that giving that kind of a little breathing room would actually be beneficial not only for applicants but also for the committee. And that if a committee chair or the designee didn't, you know, chose not to act, even though they had the opportunity to do it. So that's the problem with a with their committee. And then be perhaps even later with the town council. So, I guess I'm struggling with. Yeah, Mandy. The policy itself states that the applicant pool is closed seven days beforehand essentially, or that there's no leeway in the policy for when the SOIs and the applicant names need posted that is a minimum of seven days beforehand. It can be eight or nine, but there's a minimum. So that's the policy, whereas the statement of interest deadline is set by a chair. So, as a chair, is there anything stopping me from saying well the deadline Sunday at five, and then at 505 it comes around and I've got to what I was expecting for so I go, well I've just changed in my head the deadline to Monday at six. I'm not sure this policy stops me from doing that. It's the same. If the chair is setting the deadline, the chair can always change the deadline, as long as the ultimate policy deadline of posting the names is met. So I think personally the little leeway to say oh they missed the formal deadline is almost the same as the chair just changing the deadline on the fly, because the ultimate deadline is only when the chair essentially says to asks the town, the clerk of the council to post the SOIs. That's essentially the deadline. And is there any way we could change that that would be satisfactory in your mind in other words to make the deadline, the, the date that the chair, somewhat arbitrarily but hopefully reasonably chooses, and that's just it. And whereas the seven days before has a certain kind of finality and sort of, you know, got nothing to do with the chair likes or doesn't like that's just the way. That's what it is. That's why I like this sort of leeway. I understand what Darcy saying but, for example, a lot of when the chair asks the clerk to post it is based on the chairs availability. And so when I'm setting an initial deadline for an SOI it's based on when I hope to get to asking the clerk to post the stuff that doesn't, you know, and so it might change for different committees based on what my schedule the next day is or something. Because it gives you as a chair or the designee a little bit of breathing or flexibility. Yeah, because if I didn't have this I might say well I'm going to accept SOIs until the very last minute of when I have to, when I fully have to send it to the clerk. Now I can set that deadline a little earlier. We already know who intends to submit it if I don't get them I have a little bit of leeway to either reach out or not, or if something happens, you know, I get the concern, I really do. But we also have to recognize that the chairs that are doing the bulk of this have lives. And they were elected chair, hopefully because the committee trusts them to do the right thing. And they're responsible to the committee so if something does happen and members is wait a minute Mandy, I know that so and so sent something to you and yet it didn't get posted. What's going on here. So, I, yeah, I think there's also that aspect so Darcy please. I hear what Mandy Joe is saying. But I guess I didn't have full understanding of the fact that the chair has a discretion to set the deadline it seems like that. That would be the downside of just saying that the deadline is the posting date. And I heard what you just said that that doesn't give you much leeway but you could like encourage people to get them in earlier than that. So let me give an example. CRC yesterday had a meeting that in theory could have been exactly two weeks or one week before another meeting where interviews were taking place. I was not at home all day. So the deadline of yesterday, if that was the day I also had to get them posted would not have allowed me to get them to the clerk in time to process them because the email sometimes they come in as emails and not you know like they need put on SharePoint they need there's a lot of work that goes into getting them ready to go to the clerk for posting. And that takes time and I wouldn't have had the time yesterday because, and that happened to be because of council stuff. And so the deadline couldn't be that day and who knows whether the clerks even available that day right like the clerks Athena always recommends we get things to her two days in advance, so that we don't miss posting and you know that it doesn't always work out that way but you just, and we have lives and we have other obligations that you, you know, it takes time and so a deadline of an SOI, the day, you know, 10am the day it needs posted means I have to be around between 10 and noon to get it to the clerk and the clerk has to be not an emergency between noon and four to get it posted you know it. Right. So how about 48 hours or two business days prior to the posting date or something like that, so that it's uniform and would that would that work. Well again they're weekends and you know it's just, 48 hours per CRC is a Friday so you'll lose the complete weekend for people, whereas I tend to make it a Sunday night to give them the whole weekend. Yeah, 48 business days, 48 business hours to business days for CRC meeting that occurs on a Tuesday is a Friday or sometimes a Thursday if there's a Monday holiday. And I try to, depending on when the things are give them to Sunday night if possible, or Saturday night I had a deadline that was Memorial Day weekend. I did one of the deadlines was Memorial Day weekend and posting deadlines with Memorial Day. So it's it's highly, I think time specific, and all that's why I'm just asking for some leeway some of the flexibility, a little flexibility. Yeah. There's I think they're, well, okay, your hands are up there so please. I'd like to leave the main and provide the flexibility for the reasons that men is stated. I do think a chair is ultimately responsible to his or her committee. It has to be able to explain why they do what they do, and when they do it. And if they act in an arbitrary or, you know, capricious manner. It has to be accountable to their committee, first of all, and then eventually to the council and then eventually to the voters. So this is really I guess a concession to the challenge, particularly for CRC, which faces with GOL it's far less an issue. But it just gives the, the recommending committee chair or does it need a little bit of breathing room. Yeah, we keep the absolute drop dead date is the point at which they get publicly posted. Okay, give me an example of when a chair would decide to withdraw someone from the applicant pool if they're, if their application is late. I guess it would probably be a situation where the SOI comes in, and they're simply not around. Or, you know, they just, or the clerk is not around knows they waited to such a late point. I can give an example. For the most recent I think it was ZBA appointments. The deadline was a Sunday night. I didn't even check Sunday night I didn't even look at my email till midday Monday. And by the time I looked at my email there was an SOI in there Monday morning was not submitted Monday morning not Sunday night. And I accepted it. I think it was ZBA not not planning board, and I accepted it, because I hadn't even looked like that delay had nothing to do with me at all. And, and did not affect my actions on when I was going to post things at all. For example, for a planning board, the deadline was coming it was like four hours or five hours away and I had not received an SOI from a person I was expecting to receive some from. I emailed that person and said, your deadlines coming up. You know, I just want to make sure you need know you need to submit one, if you want to be considered. And I would have if that person had not met that deadline. If they had met the next day, I would have accepted it. And I would have accepted it because I'm trying as chair to be as accommodating as possible to things. So I personally don't see myself. The only time I see myself not accepting an SOI that is late is when I've already sent the materials to the clerk for posting. And I see myself if I haven't gotten SOIs from people I expected to and this process with resubmitting CAFs and all makes that even much more clearer of who you probably expected to get an SOI from that deadline comes and goes email and I'm saying hey, what happened we had a deadline are you withdrawing or you got till tomorrow morning. I, at least myself, I try to be as accommodating as possible. And because people have lives, and deadlines get missed, there was one ZBA candidate that didn't realize they had to submit an SOI. No matter how many times I wrote and said, you must submit one, right. When it wasn't submitted they wrote and said oh I didn't know I had to. So it was late. I do examples from the last couple months. And you send reminders to all the every every candidate generally the couple days before their do reminding them that the SOI deadline is approaching I do my best to give people as much notice and as much information as possible. Yeah. I think the other advantage of the, of the official posting is that it involves not just the chair or there doesn't need but also involves the town clerk, the council clerk. And there's a certain finality to it that you can say to someone look you know we did everything we could the deadlines etc. And there's still some time even after the deadline. But once this gets put up publicly. That's all that's it it's done. There's nothing we can do. So, whereas with the, the idea of, you know, the chair sets a deadline and somewhat arbitrary. And then they can maybe change it a little bit if they want. That is makes people a little nervous. And here at least the chair says look. This is once it goes out to the clerk. But until then, I will, you know, we'll do what we can, we'll do what we can be nice if you met the deadline that would make everybody's life easier. But it gives us a little bit of flexibility. Maybe we shouldn't have the sense at all. Well, let's see what would happen if we took it out. I guess the reason it's here is really for the public. And for anyone applying they understand that the deadline is there is a deadline and they're supposed to meet it. And so I guess it's there for that purpose. For the committee or the council policy point of view. It does, as Mandy has stated, give a little bit of breathing room to the chair or their designee. So it sends a message to the public. And it gives a little bit of breathing space to the, to the committee. But not much. It sends it off and send the SOIs to Athena. That's it. Something comes in the next millisecond nanosecond whatever it's it's too late. It's, you know, it's gone and it's been sent off. All right. Again, it states simply that one week in advance. So I shall be posted for the seven days. I think that if we're moving to number eight, there is a contradiction between number eight and then down below. There's about follow up questions. Yeah. They shall be attached to the public meeting posting to provide additional access. By the public. And the chair or designee shall notify the town council to the SOIs have been posted. I think that if we're moving to number eight. Yeah. There is a contradiction between number eight and then down below there's about follow up questions. Yeah. Somehow in number eight. Allow the committees to. Allow them or not. And then down below. Yeah. It does allow them. Yeah, I think we need to clarify that to some extent. Which I personally feel like it needs to be uniform either. Either we do or we don't. Okay. Which I would prefer we do. We allow them. We do allow them. Yeah. Yeah. And you know, if you recall the last time we had. Follow up questions, none of us asked them. I don't, or maybe one of us asked, asked one. I don't know. Just because we have the ability to, doesn't mean that we're going to actually ask them. Right. I mean, my, yeah. Okay. No, there is a tension here. We need some clarification. I. Whoops. I took that sentence. The last sentence of nine. Committee members may be given the opportunity to ask at least one follow up question. In isolation, definitely as a problem. But I agree. I agree. I agree with the statement that committees may choose to allow. But I agree stated by it by itself. It sounds like it's just a blanket permission. But earlier, it states that the committee shall, where does it say. The recommending committee may. I agree to follow up questions. Right. So that sentence in nine at the end. Was meant to. Be connected to the recommending committee may allow. I'm not sure we need the sentence in nine, but I think Darcy was questioning whether to change the sentence in eight to. Right. Yes. No, I would. I think the purpose of this policy is to make the. Processes uniform. Right. So I think that's an important. That would be an important difference. And I would like to. Not give committees the ability to be different from each other. I don't know. I don't understand why. Why you would. Decide not to have follow up questions. Well, my understanding is that the, maybe the current CRC process has changed, but at one point. The process was that these are the agreed upon questions. They're the only questions that can be asked. And all candidates will be asked the same questions. That that is the current CRC interview process. They're decided ahead of time, distributed ahead of time. And those are the only questions asked. And I think that was based on the original OCA process. Right. Sarah. Yeah, I just want to say that the original OCA process at that time, OCA felt that follow up questions would be open to counselors asking leading questions that had to do with their political bias on something. At that time, OCA decided that we should try to that. That this process was something that we should try to have a level playing field with so that members of the public could see that. The decisions that we were making were not. That they, they followed some rules that had. A fairness level that sort of. Precluded. Excessive, I don't know, political bias so that you knew that somebody wouldn't just knock you out. I don't know for some. I think that's why we, we didn't want to have counselors at that level to be able to ask some kind of a question about, you know, something like how do you feel about the ugly buildings or. I don't know. No, for real, you know, like, like that where it, it not only revealed not only a counselors. You buy us at that point, but also someone who was applying. And I think that what we didn't want to have is that. The members of the public would feel that, well, this is just the same as a select board, you know, you can just get knocked out in the very first round. For a political opinion that you have. So that's, that's where that originally came from. And again, things have evolved since then. So how do you feel about that evolution and whether, because the argument here is that. There should be the opportunity for some kind of. A follow up question. Other than what has been presented to them in writing and that all of them have to respond to, there should be a little bit more give and take a little bit more of a more natural interview process. And while it's not perfectly natural and never will be. This idea of a follow up question gives the counselor. The opportunity to ask something. And puts the person being interviewed a bit on the spot. In other words, they get potentially a question or more than one question perhaps. That they had not. Had a chance to sort of prepare. So there's a certain element of spontaneity and sort of a sense of getting a better idea of how this person thinks. On the fly. As opposed to, because we've had experiences where people just read, read a statement. And it's to my mind, that's just a colossal. I mean, just submit the damn statement. We'll read it. We can read it at home. But we've given the question advance. And some of them just write out an answer. And even the ones who don't write out an answer, probably rehearsed their answer pretty carefully. So we get kind of a canned response. And then there's no chance to say, well, you just said X, what about why there's no chance to say, or just ask another question. That's it. So I almost feel like, well, let's just have this go away. Just get rid of the first one and be part of it. And just have them send us written responses to questions that we, we create the questions. They send us the responses. We don't need to do the interviews. So I don't like that. But if it's all just. Set questions. Then why not just have them send us their responses. And we don't have to go through all the interview. You know, headaches, scheduling them, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. I mean, that, that's a really good question. I mean, you do want to, you do want to elicit. Genuine answers from people. You know, I think that when Oko originally did it, we had the discussion of the fact that some people express themselves much better in speaking. Right. And then some people express themselves better in writing. Right. And so we were trying to somehow, I mean, you can't keep, you know, equal, you know, what is it that. I don't know. Fair doesn't mean or equal doesn't mean the same. So that's, you know, that's difficult. How do we get each person to be able to, depending on how their brain works. Express themselves the best way. So, you know, I guess if, you know, I know a lot of people want to have that second question because they want to, you know, elicit more from a person or they want to have spontaneity. And then in some ways, I guess that's okay, as long as you've given the person who expresses themselves better in writing a chance to write their SOI. We'll take that shine. And you know, I'm not sure because how things work in fairness and theory and how they work in fairness and reality are two very different things. And I think that when we look at the entire process, right. Since the town council right now is not bound when all of us come right down to it, right. When we are all counselors sitting in a room and we're making a decision and we're making a decision that supports our, our political policy that is the policy we were elected on. A lot of this is going to go out the window. So I think that my fight in trying to keep. Bias questions out. I think is now I see that it's a ridiculous point. Because people, people, you know, counselors want to know. And people and counselors ask those questions consistently. So on this, I feel like it's a, that perhaps. The way that I'm viewing this is a little pie in the sky. And it's not realistic. It just isn't. So, you know, I guess I'm willing to give on that. Because I'm not running again. I'm not running again because, you know, a lot of the ideas that I have, I, you know, as far as politics go, are not practical. And I don't know that they're forwarding. What I believe in politically. So this is something I guess I'm willing to let go because I. The majority is opposed to it. And I guess I'm not sure that it actually works in reality. Well, I'm not clear where the majority is. You may be right. But what I'm hearing you say is that you're open to or willing to accept the idea of just across the board. In addition to the stated. Adopted interview questions. You are willing to accept a second round of questioning or second opportunity to ask any question. We'll call a follow up question, but essentially is a second question that is not a question that has been presented to the candidate in advance. You're willing to, to accept that. But you, like Darcy would like this to apply to all committees. It can't be. It shouldn't be left up to the committee to decide this. Either it's the rule for everybody. Or one way or the other is what I'm hearing from you. So if you want me to stand on my principle, I do not think we should have follow up questions. All right. But, you know, I. That's, that's good. Okay. Man, your hand was up. Go ahead. If the goal is consistency and that all the interviews look the same. I would eliminate follow up questions. If we're, you know, I, I, I'm willing to allow the possibility as long as each committee can choose itself, but having experienced interviews for. I, I, I, given what committees I sit on, I have in the last six months completed interviews for finance. And for, or recommendation process for all four committees, DAB finance, planning board and ZBA. And they are all very different committees. And they all have very different applicant numbers. And they all in the past did things differently. I think follow up questions can be, and I apologize for this phone. And follow up questions can be good. But if you're in a situation where you're interviewing. Six or seven people. Or two spots. And you're already at two plus hours of interviews to then allow five different people to ask follow up questions of six or seven people. I think it becomes. It's extremely long, potentially not. Good for the candidates. And as Sarah was saying, potentially not equitable. So if I had to go one way or the other for consistency's sake, I'd go no follow up interviews, no follow up questions. So I, in some sense, I kind of like this. You know, I know we're looking for consistency, but I like this option because it allows each committee. To look at the current pool and say. You know, and consider a whole bunch of things as to whether follow up questions are logical based on the questions that were decided on or not. Based on the size of the interview pool based on the availability of the candidate. Sometimes it's, you know, the candidate can show up for that interview at eight, but has to leave by nine 30. You know, if you had follow up questions, maybe one candidate's already out by then. So they are allowed to look at the inner. Individual circumstances of each particular. Process and all to make that decision, but I would go with Sarah if we want consistency and say no. So let me give you a hypothetical or not hypothetical, just an example. What do we do with people who are seeking reappointment? A question that I would like to ask them would not be appropriate to ask of the other candidates. Does that mean that the kind of question that I'd like to answer, tell us something that, you know, like the finance for instance, tell us something that, that you've learned from your experience for the last two years that you found particularly, you know, surprising or, you know, some, whatever. Tell us in other words, a question basically designed to elicit from them. Something that they've learned or, you know, whatever, or advice they might like to give. And that's a question I can't ask the other candidates because in this scenario, they're not seeking reappointment. So what does that play out? Does that mean I can't ask those questions? Right. I go back to the questions that CRC asked when it had a mixed pool for both ZBA and planning work, which was questions that said in answering this questions, please rely on your experience, your attendance at planning board or ZBA meetings in this town or other towns and you give them the opening in the question itself to say for those that have served to say, in the last two years, here's what I've learned. And for those that haven't to say, hey, I've been on other boards in other towns or I've been going to planning board meetings for the last year, you give them the opening within the standard question to be able to tailor it to their individual experience. And for those interviews, we got what you're looking for, George, from the candidates that were seeking reappointment and from candidates that were seeking original appointment. We got that variety using the experience that they had had either sitting on a board for the last two years or one year and those that hadn't that maybe had attended meetings. We got that. So what I'm hearing from you is that in your experience, which is I think the broadest of anyone here and at least of this committee. So we've all been involved in these interviews. In your experience, following adopted interview questions without follow up. It gives you more than enough information, even though the format is somewhat, you know, rigid and somewhat artificial. It's not a true back and forth. You feel that for the purpose of time and also in its sense of fairness, both to the other committee members who could be victimized by a member of their committee going off on a tangent and or the people being interviewed, they know what they're getting into. And so you would prefer basically not having this idea of follow up questions. I would choose no follow up questions if we don't want to give the committee's options themselves. Otherwise I would leave it with the option, but if we're picking one or the other, I would pick no follow up. And Sarah, excuse me, Darcy, you feel that giving the committee a choice makes you uncomfortable because that sort of whole point is to have a consistent policy across the board. And now we have under interviews, number eight, we have a policy that kind of goes two ways at once. And so you would not be happy with allowing the committee to decide. But you either have it one way or the other, but not leaving up to the committee. Darcy. Yes. I think that the only reason for. I guess I feel like the only reason for not allowing follow up questions is of time. So I would say, you know, time permitting follow up follow up questions are allowed. But I also wanted to let you know that I have a hard stop at 1230. And so I will be leaving at 1230. Sorry about that. No, no, that's no reason to apologize. We're supposed to be done at 1230. And this is taken longer than we expected, but it's, I think it's been very fruitful. But. All right. So with eight. Suggestions is how to proceed. I think you might all be in agreement of eliminating the last sentence of number nine. Committee members may be given. So we could take us just for the moment to strike that. That's okay. Prior to holding interviews, the recommended committee shall by majority vote. If you have questions, which would be as well. Recommended committee may by majority vote. So this is the, the question. This is the sentence. Issue here. Made by majority vote agreed to allow follow up questions by committee members during the interviews. People want to strike it. They want to keep it. They want to. What do they want to do? So. I think we have a couple of questions. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, I didn't know that was a, it just needs to be. It just needs to be uniform. So it would be. One or the other rule. For all of the committees. So it would be something to the fact that follow up questions. Made to permit or are permitted or. Committee members may. Each ask is a follow up question. So it could be. Let me just write this and we'll just. So the time permitting, but then that again. Okay. Let's just do it. Time permitting. Each. Committee member. May ask a follow up. It shall be given the opportunity to ask a follow up question. That's right. If you're going with, they have to be able to. I'm permitting each committee member. Shall be given. The opportunity to ask a follow up question. Okay. What do people think of that? I mean, I can think right away. You know, here I am. So the proposal is that and then delete the highlighted sentence. Right. Yeah, that's right. Exactly. But I'm thinking right away. You know, here I am with a whole bunch of really. I want to ask this person that question. I want to ask this person. And the chair. Let's say Sarah asked a question. And then the chair says, oh, we're out of time. And I'm going. But that's good. You know, that's what would happen. And I could just live with it. And I could live with it. I'm sure. But that's, you know, as opposed to. It's going to take as long as it takes. Everybody are you saying, are you saying that. No, I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. One counselor gets to, to ask a follow-up question. And then we run out of time and then you can. Yeah, I can't ask mine. You know, or does he, you have a question you really want to ask. And Mandy says, says anybody and I raised my hand. So I asked my question. And it takes a minute or two. And then Mandy says, oh, we're out of time. Well, that's time permitting. You just. Think about how many, you know, like, you're okay with that. You're okay with that. You're okay. You're okay with that. You're okay with that. You're okay with that. You're okay with that. You're okay with that. And, you know, then you can. Go crazy with them. Okay. All right. So I, I don't support the change personally. Okay. I just thought I'd say that. I would go the other way and not allow them at all for consistency. But. Again, your concern is time. I mean, it's just, you deal with very large numbers of people and. It's not just time. It's not just time. It's not just time. It's not just time. It's not just time. Yeah. It's many, much of what Sarah said too. Even though I'm the one that argues at the council level, it's political appointments. I. Right. I see our committees attempting to. Especially with planning board and ZBA, the questions that are asked have been really. Try to elicit. Non political opinions in a sense. I don't know whether Sarah agrees with the questions, but I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know what the general ideas of how they would approach decisions, not. What their particular views are on things, but. You know, it's. So what I'm hearing. I'm hearing hearing here from both. Sarah and Mandy. And potentially from Darcy, who simply wants a consistent policy. That what this could read. So we're going to be. The committee shall adopt interview questions. Be asked all applicants. And then all of this. Well, this is an addition, but I'm just all this goes away. The committee shall consider the adoption guidance and developing the questions. The committee shall also solicit questions from the town council and advance. Tempt to include them, but that would be part of our creation of the questions. Before they submitted to the candidates. So then this sentence gets stricken. And this committee members will ask the adopted interview questions of each applicant and each applicant. I mean, I don't know why this is here, but it's all right. I mean, basically just says that. Yeah. Okay. I mean, who else is going to ask them? I guess the idea is that the chair alone doesn't get to ask them or the right. Each member gets to ask a question. I don't know. I'm not sure why this is here. I don't know why this is here. I don't know why this is here. I don't know why this is here. I don't know why these things will be videotaped. And this sentence would be stricken. And what this policy now states is that the questions are selected and are decided upon in advance. They're sent to the candidates. And they are, that's it. And that those are the questions that will be asked. There'll be no follow-up questions. And that's what I'm hearing. From at least two, maybe three of you. Look, George, can I say one more thing? No, I'm not making this easy. But here in Liza rub. So if I'm saying, look, I don't want. When the entire council votes, I'd like counselors to be thinking about certain ideas of fairness that. That transcend what we as counselors. Hold. As our political convictions, right? So that we might be giving a chance to someone who is. Maybe doesn't support our views at the time, but we think as a good thinker, it might be able to, you know, change their mind on certain things, right? That's kind of what we're looking for. That's what we were asked to do. So. If. What it looks like is going to happen is that when we are all sitting down as a group to make these decisions, we are allowed to make this, all of the stuff that went beforehand could just be washed away. If we are going to appoint people that simply follow our political convictions, if that is the case and that's what it's looking like, then it seems a little bit more fair than I guess to ask to, to include when a committee is. Deciding maybe it's better that we know people's political views. Who are applying because then when it comes to the full council and counselors make decisions. Then they're going to have to stand by the point as if it is their point that they are recommending someone. Regardless of the other. Good things or bad things about. That was that would recommend them. That those things are actually pushed aside for most counselors by the fact that either. You support. The political view that. I support because I was elected to do that or not. So in some ways, maybe it gives for the, for. Citizens that get it shows you gives, I guess some accountability for counselors about how they're voting because it would be easy to say, oh, you know, I don't think I like. Jan Smith, you know, I don't think she has the right qualifications when in reality, Jan Smith is just a person that just will never support the political view as a politician and as a resident. And as a counselor feel are incredibly important. So that's, see that's where it's, that's where it's hard for me. Well, Sarah, why couldn't you not say that at the actual council vote where actually you are justifying or explaining the votes that you're about to cast. But what we're looking at is the process prior to that. And what I'm hearing from some of the members here, and I'm even myself somewhat leaning towards now. I'm just getting a process where the questions are fixed in advance, and you don't have that kind of give and take and follow up. But it creates a level playing field. And the committee will spend sufficient time has spent and will spend sufficient time in advance crafting questions that they're satisfied by, but they also know that those are the questions are going to be asked and won't be any surprise questions and won't be any grandstanding any sort of, you know, right. And I think there's an attraction to that, which is something you've been, I think it's supported for a long time. This process would would guarantee that, but the actual decision when it comes to voting, you are perfectly free as a counselor. And I would think your point is you should as a counselor. If you're going to vote for X, vote against X or vote, whatever, you should explain your vote. That's the point where you do it, not not this point in the process, but at that point where you're voting. I'm sure the process we're thinking of creating would have something that you've kind of pushed for for a long time, which is kind of this level playing field. Everybody knows what to expect. And, and we just need to craft good questions in advance. I agree on that if this policy were for the entire council and that every single council when it comes time for us to vote together was held to considering all of the things that the committee considered because if you're if if all of town council is considering the things that we are, then that transcends our political beliefs and it allows us to perhaps give a chance to someone who might be an incredibly intelligent person with a thinking mind, who may disagree with us sometimes, but has an open mind and may agree with us and it brings people together. And I think that that that if the if, if as counselors when it comes to voting all together, we are not also following these, then what can happen is that it could be a contentious vote, and someone would say, hey, you know, Mary Jane, gosh, she's just so wonderful, but I can't because blah blah blah blah blah blah reason that hides the fact that what it really comes down to is they don't agree with them politically. And again, I'm saying this and this is what I think, but I don't think it's practical. I don't, I'm telling you what I wish the way I wish the world was, but I don't think it's practical and that's why I have a hard time with it. I think we need Darcy needs to leave. We're not going to vote on this today. Obviously, I don't think we should vote on it without Darcy being present. It's certainly for the way in on that but I feel that that's something we're going to have to come back to. We're almost there I think I thought we were almost there in the beginning of tonight. Sorry. We've all been involved in this. So we're going to have to leave this I think where it is and allow Darcy to exit the meeting. I need to check with the rest of you whether you can stay a few extra minutes to at least get the minutes approved. And perhaps if we have time to look at the ROP, which I don't think would be too lengthy a matter, but that's just a suggestion. So first of all Darcy needs to go. I just don't think we can vote on this today. I mean, I'm in some sense okay with it yet. We spent the last meeting all two hours on this too. I know one member absent and we're back here and given everything else that's coming that has deadlines. I don't want to, I almost want to go immediately to a vote at the next meeting like it's where it is. We'll have a decision about it. If we start if we start like we did today, it's going to be another two hours discussing the same exact things over and over again. We will not do that I can promise you as chair we will start with the interview question, and we need to resolve that we haven't resolved it yet. We could try to resolve I think Darcy has already left correct. So, we could try to resolve it, we could continue with this today and come up with not be able to with her hand raised. Athena please go ahead. You're right I have audit RFP at one o'clock. It would be great if you were able to wrap up a few minutes before that so I can have a quick bite. Have some lunch before that meeting begins but I will need to start that zoom a few minutes before one. So I'll have to kick you off at that point. What I hesitate to suggest is maybe GOL needs another meeting in September. Okay. In other words we could meet a week from today. We could get this done. I know we have to let Athena go, but I also agree with me to Joe if we keep doing this, we're going to have to our conversation. I mean, I've done this for three years we could do it for another three. I think that the important thing is is that this gets out to the rest of the council, and then we have it out. I just. I agree with you but we still have an issue interview question section is not correct I mean it needs to be fixed. I think we need to allow follow up questions what I'm hearing from some members is no, and from others I'm hearing, maybe yes, Darcy's a yes Sarah. After your very nice argument are you switching to yes for now. I've done this one I'll support the rest of the committee and I will vote yes to get this through. Well, I'm just going to do it at the next meeting I guess is what I'm saying is I would go with the majority on this. And then if we if somebody calls the question at the beginning of the next meeting. I'm going to roll with it because I don't think I know I hate to say this and I'm not being disrespectful I'm not. We're never going to we are never going to finish this we are never going to all agree on this. It has to get out and then at some point I think we just have to have some faith. Okay well I'm hearing from number eight is and weigh in if you disagree that the majority would like this to simply state that they're you'll just at your only asked the agreed upon interview questions. I was trying to establish George are you that is that where you are you want to follow. I think at this point I'm willing to go with just accept just doing the, the adopted interview questions your your experience and that you've had is convincing me that that if we do spend the time that in the past, and as under my understanding of the entrepreneurship perhaps we haven't done quite so well, and that's on me. If we spend the time crafting the interview questions carefully, then, then my concerns are pretty much met. And so I would probably go with just dealing with the adopted interview questions, no follow ups. And hopefully the council agree with us. But I would vote for that I would put that language in and take out the follow up language. It's like Mandy would do that sounds like Sarah would do that. And I don't know where Darcy stands I think Darcy simply felt one way or the other. So this is one way or the other. It's just, it's going to be for all committees. You know, just the adopted questions. And then, and I can, you know, I think that the language just has been stricken and highlighted can be taken out. And the question under number nine was what to do with applicant pool is closed at the time. I felt that should be moved up somewhere else it should be, perhaps, right up here, I think, where, where the hell it should be. I was going to move it. I guess it's to the paragraph right before number eight, so I shall be posted at the same time at least one week advanced that's where you can add that sentence. The applicant pool is closed at the time. That's what I wanted I was going to edit this I was going to take this out. Cut. And I'm sorry, where will you say is in seven opposite person. Yes, I should be attached to the committee chair didn't you show notify right and then I was going to insert it here. It can go right at the end of that paragraph. Yeah, that's what I was going to do. And I was going to take out highlighting. I have a suggestion. I know Darcy is not here and I know Pat's not here. We kind of like this to be over. We can do a vote now to recommend or not and then George as chair, as you're writing the report, even though the official vote would be whatever the three members of us vote. Put in and poll Darcy and Pat for what their vote would be. And put that in the report. All right, that's one option. We could have the vote. We still haven't gone through. Let's see. It's just the committee appointment recommendations. That's it. Because we determined the appendix we're not doing now we're waiting for the policy to be adopted before we do. Yeah. All right, let me. So I want to clean this up. One is voting on something that we haven't cleaned up. So I want to delete that somehow. Just cut it. All right. I don't know why this refuses to show in black. Well, it's because it's a copy paste in your tracking changes, George. That's it. All right. So you're just tracking changes when you accept all the changes, things will look right. Thank you. Let me just get rid of that. Okay. I'm going to go up here and accept all changes. Review. Well, I can just do accept all changes and stop tracking. The other thing, Mandy, how do I get rid of all the comments? You'll just delete them. It takes a little bit of cleaning up here later. Okay. Do it all later is what I would say. Exactly. Okay. And we're going to take away this date. I'm going to make a motion. I'm going to make a motion that we accept this document. I'm going to make a motion to make a resolution of town council appointment. Multiple member bodies as amended. On August 25th, 2021. I'm going to make a motion that we. Accept this document. As. Recommend the council adopt. This document as amended. And Mandy seconds. I'm going to go to a vote. I'm going to start with a chair and chair votes. Yes. Mandy. I Sarah. The vote is three in favor, none opposed to absent. What Mandy is suggesting is that I reach out to the two members. Absent send them a copy of this document. And ask them if they were present, how they would have voted. And then I would include that in my report. Or no. Yes, I would. Okay. So the vote was three to zero. And two members were pulled and they would have voted X, Y, or Z. And then I will write the report and present it to the council at the next council meeting. Okay. All right. I'm going to stop sharing. We let Athena go, even if we don't do minutes. Yeah. And I guess the question is, do we want to declare, we'll have another meeting or we want to hope to get all this done? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know the other way. Hopefully we can make good progress. We will have just heads, heads up to the other two of you. We should have two zoning amendments to review. We, and we would have the rule of procedure to look at. We're hoping for three, George. You just don't have the third yet. And so I'm going to send that to Paul. You'll get the third. Hopefully. In a week. Okay. September 1st. All right. Okay. I guess we can wait if we have to. That's not the most pressing thing. That can wait if we have to boot it, but there's only amendments. Can't. And this has been settled. And then we have a time manager goals referral, which again is, is something we can deal with at a later date if we have to. So I guess basically the next meeting is going to be on. The zoning amendments. Okay. I don't think it's going to be short, but I just want to get it over with. I hate to say that, but some of these things are just so emotionally taxing. But I just feel like if we all listen to each other and we're moderate, let's get it done. Okay. So you're saying that the next meeting, which is September 8th. You could hang later if you have to. We want to get these three zoning amendments out of the way. If we get them. I need a report to be submitted to the council for September 13. And anything else? Okay. All right. We'll worry about minutes another day unless you want it. I've looked at them. They're fine. If you want to just have a vote, we can, we can just make the motion. I'm going to move that we approve. The minutes of July 28th as presented. I made no changes. Okay. It's been moved and seconded vote. I'll start with Sarah. Hi. And Mandy. Hi. And George's and I, the chairs and I, so it's 302 absent. The minutes have been approved. I will send those on. And just note for the record, there's no public for public comment. Thank you for checking. I got that. Thank you. All right. So let Athena go and let the two of you go. Thank you all for your hard work today. And see you. September 8th. Okay. Thanks everyone. Hi.