 Okay. Other folks will join as we go on, but we'll call the meeting to order at five 36. Given our account of counselors. And with that 1.03, which is to. Approve the agenda. Can I have a motion on that? I moved to approve the agenda. Moved by commissioner Hart. I second that. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed. That is moved unanimously. Moving on to item 1.04. We have minutes from October 22nd. Can I have a motion to approve those minutes? Moving on to the minutes. Okay. Move to 2020. Thank you, commissioner. Seconded by. By commissioner Durfey. All those in favor. Any discussion. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed. That is also moved unanimously. Moving on to item. I'm just going to, I'm going to abstain to say and have a chance to read the minutes, October, sorry. Did we just do that? That was minutes for the 22nd, not the 26th. Okay, great. Moving on to 1.05 with the minutes from 1026. Did we get a motion to approve those? We did not, and I can't do that because I was not there for that meeting, so I can't verify that. I will make a motion to approve the minutes from the meeting of 1026. Thank you, Commissioner Durfee, moved. That's like Commissioner Hart, any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye, any opposed? That also- I abstain. I am abstaining also because I was not there. Great, and we'll have Commissioner Gamash and Hart abstaining from 1026. Great, next item on our agenda is the public forum. Did we have anybody signed up to speak, Shannon? We did not know. Great, if anybody in the public would like to speak, we'll just give you a chance to raise your hand now. Seeing none, I'm going to close public forum and we will move on to item 3.01, which is references from the community facilitator RFP. We were hoping to get some feedback from that and then it's positive to move that process along towards contracting. So looking to you, Karen. Hi, yep. Sorry about my internet connection in advance. I have to keep my camera off. I did get two really good references. I just, sorry about the sirens. I don't, I can present on those here. One person, I did get, have a conversation, a very nice conversation with just these emergent C vehicles, I'm so sorry. Maybe you can't hear them, but I can. I did have some really great conversations with my college, the international school and spoke to Naila, who is German and she spoke about a project that Talitha did with international students. One of the most impressive things that she did say, I mean, she did speak on the diversity of the folks who are working at Talitha and some of the projects that she knew they worked on, but specifically one of the things that I think would be interesting to this panel is that it was the first time that the international school, which is comprised of refugee students from all over the world was meeting virtually. And they were very impressed. Naila shared that she was very impressed with the way the students from age 18 to 36 were engaged. There is the chair or the principal at Talitha is a refugee herself. So she was able to really engage folks. And she talked a lot about, Naila spoke a lot about the energy that was generated, even though this was almost completely virtual. So I was impressed by that. And then also there were a lot of preliminary steps that Talitha was not required to do that they did so that they would be really prepared to engage these folks virtually. So that was, I don't know if everybody has read the references or gotten a chance to read through the entire packet from Talitha, but that was a really important one because they had been working with, we're really in this process with both RFPs really looking at folks who have some experience with talking and working with side-by-side with marginalized communities. And I felt like that project was really significant. I did not hear back. I did reach out to Kimberly Dodd, she's in Seattle and she's heading a very big project right now. She sent me a very favorable email regarding some work that Talitha did with the city of Seattle. And this is multiple projects that they did. So it was really kind of, I was really hoping to speak with her on the phone, but she did send a nice email. She did say that she's very busy with these projects and obviously it's election time, but she sent a very favorable email. So those are the two folks that I heard back directly. I did get several other emails saying, please schedule a call, but so far, we did get a total of five favorable email responses, basically just offering to talk about specifics, but all of the emails four, I'm sorry four, all of the emails were very, very favorable, but they didn't go into the detail that, my conversation, I wanna one conversation can go. So that would be up to this group if we're feeling like, I spoke with Naila for about an hour, but if we feel like we need to wait for someone else to call and actually speak with me, that's something that I can certainly keep trying to do. Or we can look at these positive responses via email as a way to move forward. I'm gonna follow up. Great, thank you, Karen, and what I'm hearing you say is that you have heard enough that you would recommend saying that the references have been favorable. Yes, I would, and I did do this for a profession for a long time, so I'm feeling really confident about the responses that I did get. And I was really impressed by the speed of the emails that were returned. I think that's a good indicator of folks who really wanna support with them. Great, does anybody have any questions for Commissioner Durfee? Great, then I think I'd feel slightly more comfortable if we went ahead and did a vote on if we consider the references favorable based on Commissioner Durfee's report so that we can move that along. And Joy's on, right? Yes, I'm here. Great, do you mind just giving us a quick overview of what the next steps are and if there's anything we need to do or if you and Shannon can handle it from this point forward? So the next step, if you decide that this is the direction you wanna go would be to make a motion requesting me to draft a resolution, requesting the city council to authorize the person of your choice to execute the contract. Great. So that is one question is who you want to be the person to do that. Which you would recommend to be you? No, no, I can't do that. I would probably, I don't wanna throw on anyone under the bus who isn't here but I'm probably either director Green or the CAO. One of the two. Director Green is on. So if we could enable them to seek. Thank you for joining us, director Green. Sorry, so it was a surprise, pull you into these meetings but wondering if you're okay with being the person to execute the agreement. Sure, yes, I can do that. Yeah. Yes. So much. Thank you. And then I believe what, as stated, we're looking for a resolution to city attorney, Kovestat. Kovestat, Kovestat to draft a resolution to the city council authorizing director Green to execute an agreement with Tabitha for this RFP. Do I have, would someone be willing to make that motion? I will. Moved by commissioner Seguino. Okay. Seconded by commissioner Durfee. Any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? That also passes unanimously. Congratulations. It has been a many meeting process. I look forward to working with Tabitha and hopefully we can get that done quickly and schedule a meeting to meet with them this month. Great. And Joy, do you have an idea of when that resolution would make it to the council? Would it be the second meeting in November or? Yeah, we don't have time to get it on next Monday but whatever the next meeting is. And someone probably should, I don't know if anyone is here from Tabitha but someone should probably reach out to them and just let them know that that's what's happening. Okay. Great. I can do that if I need to. Great. Then moving on to our next agenda item. Congratulations on getting the first big milestone that we've had out of the way. We've got 3.02 which is to approve the Burlington Police Department Assessment RFP. I want to note that we had a discussion last time where we said we think we might have substantial enough changes that two or three of the commissioners did not feel comfortable just handing it off to Shareen and I. Oh, your name is different today. And we decided to do more substantial changes. I do apologize. I've been so impossibly behind that I'm doing everything last minute which means you just got the changes today. And I did make much more substantial changes than we had, nothing we discussed. I think then it was kind of accumulation of what our discussion had been but it ended up as I dug a little bit deeper into the RFP as opposed to just scanning it. I ended up making more changes which we don't, which I think we have the chance to discuss now. The other thing that I will say is Stephanie just sent us some additional comments and changes that she would like to see. We should post those if we're gonna discuss them. Shannon, I know you said you were, is that something you're able to do now? I'm sorry, I don't have stable enough internet to have board docs take significant amount of this computer. And so I do apologize. That's okay. Audrey, if you can share your screen then with both those changes and Stephanie so we can discuss them all at once. I know that this is a little bit of a painful process. The reason that we do this is we can't come to consensus offline. So we can't all collaboratively work at a document and still adhere to open meeting law. So it is a little bit of a clumsy way to come to agreement on a document but if we can just take the time to go through this. Audrey, if you can show the version with track changes. So folks can see it. Yeah, and then at the end we'll view it without it. And along those lines, I'm happy to first give a summary of what I have and I haven't actually myself had a chance to look at. Stephanie, so if you don't mind doing the same thing for us once I'm done, I'll quickly walk everyone through once it opens on my computer. Great, so we did accept the previous changes. So this is based on moving forward from last time accepting all the things that we had talked about. Oh gosh, actually I guess that's not true. Some of these are, I think still the old ones. I apologize if we did not accept all the changes that we had talked about. The most substantial changes that we did were in the scope of work. So if you move down to page four, everything else I think might be old changes that we'd already agreed to. And here I fleshed out kind of the intro paragraph to lay out a little bit more of the whole process then fleshed out before we had just a look at call volumes. And we had discussed a few other things such as routes and other things like that. So pulled those into a framework that was what and how which included call volume for me, call volume workload and alternatives. I actually also pulled up this part about alternatives that had originally been in the end goal into that section. And then I had a section on who, so individual systemic racism and economic bias and where we actually meant to put geographic based systemic racism and economic bias to get a little bit more at what the resolution called for which was who, how, when and where we police or something to that extent. And then I changed the end goal to be three things which is to develop a recommended list of growing two police department services which includes a menu of services to add or enhance or reduce or remove and developing a recommendation for staffing models by providing a framework for decision-making on the menu of services and options for delivery within and outside the police department. And my goal with the changes that I made was really to make sure that some of the things that were articulated around decision-making was really more up to the joint committee and anyone that were advising as opposed to the consultant to be a little bit broader at looking at what we're examining beyond just call volumes and workloads to be a little bit more comprehensive and then calling out a little bit more explicitly because I heard somebody say that last time using the results of the community visioning process with RFP that we just approved to inform kind of more of a gap analysis between the status quo and the vision. So those are my changes which I realize were substantive to the scope of work. Oh, sorry, there was one more. If you go down to three, which was done very quickly because I was running out of time before Shannon left to no longer have access to board docs, which was flagging that we do want someone who understands community work as well because we are kind of looking at someone who can do the difference between the status quo and the visioning and provide some recommendations on that. And that that's gonna be an innovative and creative process because Burlington is, there's not a lot of places that we can model off of since this hasn't been done amazingly well in any community in Burlington is wants to be at the leading edge of what our public safety service offerings look like. Okay, sorry, I just didn't wanna miss anything that I did make substantive changes to. So with that, I'll pass it to Stephanie and then I'll open it up for questions and comments and changes that folks want to see. So some of my changes are editorial for clarity. I'll just leave it at that. I changed the qualifications that are looking for the background and there is an issue I have a concern with but let me just let people kind of comment and that'll arise when at the appropriate time. And I can't see everyone at once. So if folks can virtually raise their hands or chime in. I just had a question with Commissioner Dorfee. I did review the document that came out at four o'clock. I guess I'm just wondering, Commissioner Saguino, are your edits in blue? Mine are the red ones, let me just see. Let me just, if you can stop scrolling for a second, just stop for a second. So I don't know if mine are the purple ones on this document. I was just worried that I was not hard to do it this way. Can someone email me this document? I just emailed the Zariah's document with my edits to the entire joint committee. And I was going to ask for that. So thank you. Just so I'm clear, the document which is posted right now is that includes your edits, Stephanie, or that does not include your edits? Yeah, because it has SS at the end. You can see that that's how you know that it's the one that I've edited. Right, so I just want to make sure the one that is currently being shared, that one has edited it. Yep, thank you. So the one that is on four docs is the one that only has my edits. And then Stephanie sent subsequent edits that are only up on the screen and in your inbox. Okay, but I don't have any purple on the one that I got in my inbox. So in that case, my edits are a different color. Yeah, on my screen they're blue and green, not purple and turquoise. Okay, so can I have what is being displayed on the screen email to me? So that's the email that I just sent to the committee. Check your junk mail. Yeah, it ended up in junk mail, yeah. Yep, I should know by now. I'll just briefly register my say frustration that I'm dealing with two separate documents with huge amounts of edits in the last hour before this meeting. It's very difficult to actually pay attention to these before we discuss them. I understand that the pressure on, I understand, given open meeting laws, we have to discuss them as a body. But it'd be helpful to have these edits sufficiently advanced in the meetings so I can actually look at them. I hear you and it is sometimes a little tough for me to get to edits and Sharon and I didn't even end up meeting on this at all. So it's just been a crazy time. And if the commission feels like you all need, we need to delay this by a week and meet again, definitely happy to have a motion made to that extent. There, I was not planning on making substantive changes. I know that folks were missing the last meeting. I don't want this to go through without anyone having enough time to review it and dig into it because it is a meaningful document. And so I apologize that I put people into that situation. My intent was definitely to get this to you much earlier and I'm happy to rectify that in whatever way. Seems best. Zariah. Yes. I am still not looking at the same document. So I'm way confused. So I have what was said at 536 and when I open it, I don't have the color schemes. So you may just in your, when you open it, your word may have a different default. So one, the colors will be different. They're different on my computer too. And then if you go to... Well, I have a Mac, so I don't know if the Mac is changing it at all because I know sometimes the formats are a little bit different. I don't have, I have next to no colors. I also would like to echo that this is a lot. This is a lot to have to look at and go over without having a chance to read it through thoroughly. And I hear what you said me that busy is a lot going on, but it's, we... May I propose a solution? Go right ahead. May I just suggest that we take a break for 15 minutes for people to go through this? I think the easiest way to do it is to accept all changes. You can save the other document, but then what really matters is what's there now. And so accept all changes and then from that make comments. If that was a motion to recess in 15 minutes, I second it. Great. Moved by Commissioner Seguino and seconded by Commissioner Hart. Any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? So that passes unanimously and we will recess for 15 minutes and come back at 6.18 p.m. And can I just add that, so just to be clear that everybody's looking at the same document, it should be the document that has underscore SS at the end so that it has both Zariah's changes in mind. Great. Okay. Cool. I would also like to add to, if you look at the, if you open the email and just look at the preview of the document, it will be a little bit different than if you properly open it up outside of the email. Not sure that helps anybody else, but I did notice a change in the documents when I did that. Great. Thank you, Jibu. That gave folks enough time to review. Certainly was good for me as I also hadn't yet reviewed commercials, Ziguino's changes. If folks didn't have enough time to review, let us know now, because we could extend the recess. My edits are currently on page six out of 11 on the Ziguino document. Great. Do we want to move to recess longer? If everyone else is fine, I will continue working as we discuss it. If I'm the only one who's behind, I will do that. Use a few more minutes. Me too. So 10 more minutes. Is that, how long do folks need? I move that we recess for an additional 10 minutes. Second. Moved by Commissioner Harp, seconded by Commissioner Ziguino. Any discussion? Commissioner Durfey. Oh, sorry, Commissioner Durfey. I just saw a hand, so I took it. You can't see anything. No, great. 10 minutes is great. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Great. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. Was that in opposition? And if so, I missed. Oh, no. I was muted before. I meant to say aye before, so aye for yes, sorry. Great. So we'll say that was moved unanimously and we will reconvene at 6.30. Thanks, everyone. For going through and doing that, dealing with last minute changes. Appreciate your patience with me and the process and really glad to see your changes, Stephanie. I think they were great additions to my hasty ones. So if I can propose a process through going through this, I propose we skip the executive summary till the end just because that makes sense to me. And we start with the background and then just go through it section by section until we come back to the executive summary. So folks can kind of talk through their changes and then we can come to hopefully some kind of consensus on language going forward. So starting us off on page two with the background, Audrey will make changes as folks chime in. So does anyone have changes on the background section? And again, I can't see everyone. So you may just have to chime in or raise your virtual hand. And I apologize. The attendee who had their hand raised has now gotten so hopefully that's not too problematic. Would you like comments on minor grammatical changes or would you like to just have those include at the end? I think we may as well do it so that we can get this document done. So go ahead, Stephanie. I would just encourage us to stick to substantive issues. I think that the editing stuff is something that can be handled later. It's not substantive. And just to be able to spend the time on substantive matters, I would just suggest editorial stuff be said to you. I will say that if you, I mean, it is whatever the commission wants to do if we decide not to do editorial changes but we want those done, we'll have to authorize somebody to do that at the end with the, so depending on how you want to handle that, you should handle the editorial changes right now as well. All right, so I'm comfortable just sending along my proposed minor grammatical changes and authorizing someone to adopt them or reject them as they see fit. I don't think they need substantial discussion. So I'm in favor of Stephanie's suggestion. I do want to say something's commissioner D'Rofi before we get started. You know, I have two children with learning differences. And so, and I think there's people on the call that have different ways of learning and understanding what, you know, you've got two professors on here, you know, I'm a business woman. So I think I want to be careful about saying, okay, well, let's, you know, just move on. We didn't want to do that last week. And now I see that's a really good idea. We should not have done that because I think commissioner Seguino's edits were, I mean, I didn't even get a chance to look at them. And then, you know, it's just about what Randall said before as like, this is a big document, it's an important document. And I wouldn't mind slowing it down and making sure that, you know, this is the last time that we have to look at it. And then just sort of honoring everybody's learning differences because I don't want to rush through something somebody doesn't understand or make a change that somebody doesn't understand. So I understand, you know, respectfully that people want to, if there's edits, there's not a ton of edits left. We can slow down and do this writing and make sure that we're including everybody. Because this has not been an inclusive process in terms of equity and learning because I myself have a hard time, you know, sort of catching up when we're editing. This is not the way my brain works when we're editing together. And I know it's something we have to do, but thanks Karen. And if you have any, definitely happy to slow down and if you have any other suggestions on ways that we can make this easier and inclusive for everyone, definitely happy to hear them. So still on that, go ahead. Yes, I just wasn't sure whether that was, thanks Karen. I wasn't sure whether that was a response to the suggestion or not. So I'll say again, so just to be clear about kind of what I was suggesting. Yeah, I don't know that it's necessary right now to spend time saying things like there's an extra comma here or the word and is repeated twice here. I mean, I think that is not necessary for our discussion right now because I assume that those sorts of edits are uncontroversial for everybody. And so I'm happy to just send all of those edits along and not discuss them as we go along. But if people want to discuss each of those, I'm happy to do so as well. I just think that it might be more efficient of our time to discuss the more substantive potential changes. So one thing, sorry, and now that I just want to help you and your decision-making prospects, I also can't get edits from six or seven people on the committee and incorporate them. So if one person has edits, like that they want to send to Sharon and I, like in terms of making a small change it, like that's fine. But once we get more than that, we'd have to meet again basically because we can't incorporate different people's edits even if it is not substantive into one document. So again, happy to handle it however y'all want, but we can't receive multiple documents from different people and be told to just incorporate it. Yeah, and Commissioner Hart, thank you for that. I wasn't really speaking to your comment. I know I write a lot. So I didn't know that what you're talking about isn't substantive. I was just really, I've been deliberating on the process the entire time we were going through the document and I was looking at the weight of the document and some of the language and some of the changes and really just wanted to just call that out. But so we can focus on the substantive edits, that's fine, but we just need to, and also people are listening to us. This is a public meeting. So can't assume that everybody understands everything. So I'm fine with going on with the substantive edits, but just want to make that point. So Commissioner Hart, are you volunteering and I'm not volunteering you, I'm sincerely just, I'm sincerely asking if you're wanting to do that, you know, the proposed cleanup of just the non, I'm very comfortable with someone just being the second set of eyes to make the cleanup that naturally happens when a couple of people do redlining, they're just natural typos. So was that something you were offering to do? I am not offering, but I am willing. I would say all I want to ensure is that any document that we send out is grammatically clean. So if that's the only way to do it, I'm happy to do it. No, I'm happy to, it doesn't matter to me. One of us will pick it at the end of the meeting. I think we all are, it sounds like we might have a plan here that we will select one person to just do the cleanup of non-substantive so we can focus on the meat of it right now. That's right. I'm comfortable with nominating any number of people to do that final grammatically clean up. So that's fine. Okay, thank you. Great, so coming back to the, thanks for clarifying that process, coming back to any substantive changes on the background section. Then not closing the book on that, but moving on any substantive changes on the attachments section. Not hearing any substantive changes I assume yes on the scope of work section. This is not necessarily a substantive change, but it is something which I just like clarified. Paragraph two of section four, I have it as line five. The word administration is used there. It's not used anywhere else in the documents. I assume that it is clear for the author what administration means. They might not be clear to the reader of the RFP. So I just suggest that that be clarified. And how would you like to do that? Would you like to delete it? Would you like to add a definition? What's your? So I myself, I'm not clear whether or not that's supposed to intend, whether that's intended to refer to the administration of the mayor or if it's intended to refer to the administration of the police department because it's intended to refer to some other administration. So not being the author of that line, I can't say how to be clarified. I think, I don't know. I think I was probably the one who put that in and I'm happy to have it be removed or if we want to include somebody else in the decision-making process. Were you thinking of the mayor's administration when you put that in? Okay. I think we could just put that in. If you, I don't think there's anything wrong with that just being clear about who the administration is. Other changes and again, I can't see everyone. So feel free to pipe in. I would just say then in paragraph four, so that's the second paragraph would be what and how section. Second sentence, second line. It says, this will be compared to community envisioned levels of public safety and quality of life services desired and implied staffing levels and skills needed to provide those services. And I'll just say, I think there's, I find a bit unclear about whether, about what community envisioned levels of public safety means. There have been statements about levels of police staffing, but not necessarily I think a clear statement about community envisioned levels of public safety. So I don't know if there was some document or some expression of levels of community, levels of public safety desire that that was supposed to refer to. It seems like it's kind of a roundabout way of referring to levels of police staffing. I think those aren't necessarily equated with one another. Would your point be addressed if we just removed levels of and said this will be compared to community envisioned public safety and quality of life services desired? And then I think the assumption would be as defined in this previous RFP or this concurrent RFP. So the proposed edits again? Yes, so removing levels of so that it reads this will be compared to community envisioned public safety and quality of life services desired or moving desired so that it reads this will be compared to community envisioned public safety and quality of life services. I mean, so at the risk of using more words to express something hopefully more clearly, I think that just using community envisioned might be the problem and it might just be that we can expand on what we mean there. So if it's something like this would be compared to the community's desires for public safety and quality of life services that might be a little bit clearer to me. That can still be wordsmith of it. That's a little bit clearer to me than just community envisioned public safety. Do you wanna repeat that so Audrey can capture it? Go ahead Stephanie. The suggestion was this will be compared to the community's desires for public safety and quality of life services. Stephanie, what did you have? I'm just gonna make a more radical proposal. Feel free to disregard it. For me that first paragraph, what and how call volume workload and alternatives is adequate. We actually don't need the next paragraph. Part of it refers to qualifications which doesn't really need to be here. I think all that needs to be said is to add a line to that that says that that well, the way I would put it is the contours of public safety are concurrently being evaluated by a consultant for a separate project. Something like that, but that we reference that the goals of public safety will be determined by a consultant who will be working with the community to determine the level and type of services desired. And that for me, I think you don't need the next paragraph at all. Stephanie, do you think we need any of that? So not to get into the weeds on the PSAPs, the E911 and things like that? Yeah, I think it's implicit. If they're gonna look at call volume, I think all of that's implicit. I mean, I personally am in favor of this is, I would be in favor of reducing that paragraph. The only thing I think that last sentence in that paragraph that I suggested be deleted is to keep that last sentence. The joint committee recognizes there are a few examples. I mean, I think we wanna just be clear that we are not looking for some kind of off the shelf solution but are looking for really innovative solutions. So I would keep that. If that paragraph is to be deleted, I think that including familiarity with the dispatch system might be useful later on in the documents, for example, in the subject matter expertise section or in another section, but section five, expertise and experience, those numbers are off, but it should be number two subject matter expertise. Don't worry about the numbers, Audrey, I think. So would you like me to move that familiarity with the PSAP stuff down to this one now or are you guys still discussing all of this? I guess a pause then and is anybody worried about removing that paragraph? Is everybody generally okay with removing that and taking any components of it that are relevant in experience section and moving it down? No issues. No issues. I think it's a good suggestion and it clarifies this. I would agree. Sorry, Mila. I'm sorry, I was just saying I would agree. The report was just said. I agree so long as the relevant expertise has moved to a relevant expertise section. Great, then do you, do you, Audrey, I think the best way to go about this may be to move up the sentence that Stephanie wanted, add the sentence that she wanted and then just leave the expertise section for now until we get to the expertise section. Okay. Commissioner Seguino, would you care to restate that sentence you would suggest it adding? I'm gonna type it out for myself and then in a minute I will do it. If that, do you mind? Absolutely. Type it out. May I make one other suggestion? In that first paragraph, what and how, scrutinize the degree to which public safety work falls on police and delete quality of life because it's ill-defined and ambiguous and vague and really this I think is about public safety so I would just suggest deleting quality of life. So I mean, I'm not sure, talk me through that more Stephanie. So I think my understanding would be that one of the tasks that policing currently serves and doing in Burlington and other communities is would be roughly under the rubric of quality of life. So that would be some of the service that would be subject to reevaluation of whether they should remain in the, you know, under BPD or elsewhere. So is that, so if that's the case then it would seem to me as though talking about a mention of the kinds of quality of life work that the police are currently asked to do is something that would have to be reevaluated as well. Yeah, I'm a little stuck on that because I think quality of life is just too broad and vague but I hear your point Randall but I think quality of life is a bit vague. It could be too much. I think that public safety is a bit vague as well, right? So I mean, I think that's probably the problem is that's all of these things that the police are asked to do are in some ways vague and subject interpretation. So asking like what constitutes public safety as something which is vague, which needs to be made more precise. Likewise, quality of life, something which is vague but needs to be made more precise and has been made more precise by various departments across the country, right? So there are all sorts of statutes, for example, that police might enforce that one would be hard-pressed to categorize as a public safety matter and yet they are current police and powers that police have. And I think that the justification for the police possessing those powers is that they are probably speaking quality of life concerns. I don't have a solution but thank you for that. Is it better to list it out? I mean, I don't want to get in the weeds here but I think because I've been on the commission and I've been on the commission with Randall and I just feel like the quality of life makes sense to me but is it better to just be a little bit more, is it helpful to be a little bit more, say a little bit more about it or call it something else so that we can say the whole sentence, like not quality of life, quality of life, expand on that point a little bit more because I do agree that that's sort of what we call it. It's sort of jargony and it's kind of unclear but I understand the jargon if that makes sense. And I was happy to see the addition of what it is embracing but it's totally valid that those two terms are not exactly clear but it does represent something different. May I just suggest that we move on and come back to that? Sometimes we get, you know, brains can get unstuck if we move on and maybe think of a solution or just leave it as is as after we continue to review. Great, so then. That's fine with me. I'll just kind of, it's my parting time that I'll just say again, my view is that quality of life work currently falls in place and it's undefined but I think it currently does. And so that, you know, so that all that section is saying is let's evaluate that which would require, I assume, precise defying it. And sorry to make you and do what you just did, Audrey. If you can, just because I wanna make sure, I think I heard, if you can just delete the first two sentences for now and then I'm fine to delete the next sentence but I wanna make sure. I think I heard Franklin last time say that he wanted something like this in here. So just quickly checking and you don't have to answer now, Franklin. I don't mean to put you on the spot but if we, that everybody's okay with that being gone. Fine. I'm good with it. Great. And then we'll come back to the, to those other sections when we get to, when we get to experience. So I just say quickly for the record that I, I appreciate that the document is being shared as we edit it, but I just can't read into the document. It's too small in my screen right now. So I'm going to hope that, that document can also be distributed before we take a final vote on it. Yes, I think we can both do that. And maybe yes, Audrey can do that. Thank you. Great. And we're waiting for Stephanie on the sentence above. So moving down to page five. We are still on background and moving into this section, still on the what and how section, but now talking about the alternatives. I will, what and how alternatives? Yes. Yes. So I'll say the, it used to be the first full paragraph on page five. And it's the first paragraph that begins with the selected consultant. Just at the end of that first sentence of that paragraph, it says, you know, to meet community demands for and values related to public safety. And so I just don't know, I just have a difficult time parsing the phrase and values related to public, you know, to meet community demands for and values related to public safety. So, I mean, I think it's just the expression meeting values related to public safety. That's not because what we do with values, we don't meet them. So there might be a better way of putting it together. Could you say that? I think we're open to changes. You just have to suggest what they are. Give me a minute to figure out a better way to express that. Okay. While he's doing that, I do have a sentence for you. Great. So we'd go in that paragraph, yeah. And yeah, I can read it to you. Is there a way to post it in the chat or something? I don't think we unfortunately have a chat session. Okay. So here it is, I'll go slowly. So it's a parentheses. And it would be as follows, the joint committee has engaged a consultant to engage the community in developing a vision and articulation of its values on public safety and quality of life, period. The consultant for this RFP will use those findings as a basis to evaluate the need for police services and those from other entities. So great. Thank you. Other changes folks would like to see in this section. Great. So not closing the door on this. And sorry, this is for the whole section. So going to the who and the where as well. And I would suggest a revision to the sentence that I was talking about. Go ahead. The sentence paragraph can begin as the selected consultant and so I'll just suggest to change that entire sentence, I guess. The selected, so this is my proposed edit. Sorry, I didn't write it down. The selected consultant will help the joint committee examine alternatives to policing, begin edits in order to meet community demands and respect, sorry, and promote shared values related to public safety. So instead of as a means to in order to and instead of and values related to and promote shared values related to public safety, it is not my best sentence, but I think it is really good. I think it's great, Randall. I'm happy to, I think that's hearing no concerns. I think we're good to delete the other, the previous version. Any other changes on any part of the scope of work? Then again, not closing this, but moving on to the end goal. I don't have proposed edits right now, but I would just say that I found the first two end goals to be confusing. So I guess I might appreciate some further discussion about what was intended before I can understand how to suggest edits. So with respect to the first one, develop a recommended list of one police department services by providing an analysis of the benefits and feasibility of policing alternatives. So develop a list by providing an analysis of the benefits and feasibility of policing alternatives. Yeah, so the first part's important. So saying the selected consultant should be able to help the joint committee. So I'm putting the end goals of the joint committee is the way that I framed it because I wanted us to be clear on what we wanted to do and what we expected them to do to do that. So I envisioned us, and this is open to recommendations because I changed this because we have not talked about this so much. I think we danced around it a lot in our last conversation that maybe we're making a list of services that we think should be enhanced or added or removed or reduced. And I don't know if that's just for Burlington Police Department or if it's also one outside of it. I guess I put outside of it in the second one, but not in this one. And so that we need from them a menu of services to add or enhance and reduce, remove and why in order for us to make that list. Does that make more sense? You look more confused, so maybe not. Well, I think, so the suggestion is that the consultants will be providing an analysis of the benefits and feasibility of policing alternatives. And then you say, this will include just a menu of services to add or enhance or reduce or remove current services. So is enhancing a service a policing alternative? Is that the idea? I just worried, essentially, so my worry is that the phrase policing alternatives. So the first suggestion is that the consultants going to find an analysis of the benefits and feasibility of policing alternatives. But the second sentence doesn't sound to me as though it's kind of talking about policing alternatives. It sounds as though it's talking about existing policing services and ways to augment or edit those. And even if you say like, it includes those, like why would, yeah, so I guess I'm just confused about that. I see. Good point. I think those either should be clarified or broken into two and it will give suggestions for either one of those. Go ahead, Stephanie. So on page two, you actually have a sentence that really concisely says that. And that's why I'm not sure that that section is actually needed. And so just to refer you back to the top of page two, it says the end goal we are seeking is an analysis that provides a roadmap to a methodical transition to a new innovative public safety apparatus that delivers services, be they police services and other services that are aligned with Burlington's values addition. To me, that says it all. And I would just say delete the section that we were just discussing or repeat it. But the first sentence I just read actually seems more clear than what was later on. The sentence up top, Stephanie, the end, the one that's highlighted right now is more clear as a replacement for the sentence that's down below, correct? Yeah, and I wouldn't replace it. I mean, I don't know that there's a need to repeat it. If you want to though, then maybe repeat it, but it seems to be really clear. Yeah. Go ahead, Karen. Sorry, you had just a little bit of background noise in the background, go ahead. Great, so I have some changes to the sentence before we move it, because I actually think it's not clear. Which is to the end goal is I would delete, we are seeking is analysis. And just put the end goal is, or that provides a roadmap. Ooh, sorry, trying to, the end goal is a roadmap that supports. And then I could put the rest of the, a methodical transition. And the reason I can't find it is I was looking at the wrong version of this document. I was like, I could have sworn I wrote up these changes. And then I would put valued community, sorry, a public safety apparatus that delivers valued community services and then delete the last part after other services that are aligned. So to lean that are aligned with, Stephanie, I know you're the writer of that sentence, so. Oh, edit whatever way you want. I thought you wrote it. No, it wasn't me. I will quibble about the be they police services and or other services line, but that's a minor quibble. Can you say what changes you would like to see? I thought we're gonna get to that at the end of this discussion, but I would just replace the kind of scroll back up to that. The be they X and or Y phrase with whether police services or other services. So instead of be they police services and or other services, just replace that phrase with whether police services or other services. I had it in parentheses, but it doesn't need to be just to clarify, just think that the and or is awkward because you wouldn't say be they this and that. Great, I hear no dissent. So I think we can delete that. That doesn't, that's not a substantive change. So I think that's fine. Great. How is everybody doing? Everybody has their camera on. So I don't know when I just see a few folks. That's good. You're doing a good job. This is not easy work. Okay. So we will leave that sentence there. If you can copy it though, and let's go back to the section on background, not background, my apologies, scope of work. And then Stephanie remind me what you wanted to do. Well, I just think if you wanna repeat the angle that's fine, but then I delete one, two, and three. Okay. So I will consult, I'm sorry. So the selected consultant should be able to help the joint committee achieve its end goal, which is great. I will argue against that just because I do think we're, and I am happy to be overruled, but I do think that being a little bit more clear on what we wanna get out of this, which I don't think we've articulated, even for ourselves, is probably not a bad thing to do. And then what we think we need, I mean, I think we've articulated what we think we need from the consultant. But so maybe it's just rephrasing it to say, our end goal is to be able to make this kind of recommendation, just giving them some North Star for what we wanna do. So I agree with Randall that what I wrote is not clear, but wonder if it would be worth making it clear instead of deleting it. So I'll just say, yeah, so I think there could, being able to clearly distinguish between two things would be helpful in our view. So one is kind of exactly what deliverables we want out of the consultant. And then second, exactly what the goal is for the work the consultant is doing. And I do think that part of my confusion with that section was first, it was unclear to me what exactly was the request for the deliverable and what exactly was the goal. And then kind of what my understanding is what Commissioner Seguino is saying is, if this is not a request for deliverables, if this is just a goal, then why does it need to be kind of made as repeated here when it's already made in other places? So that I think I'm some think with Obama. And I think that kind of laying out, making precise exactly what the goal is is not a bad idea. So I think I'm with you, Councillor Hightower, that the best thing to do is kind of just clarify what's going on in this section, that this is just articulating what the goal is for the joint committee, but I'm happy to go either way. And maybe I can take a stab at that and then folks can say if it's true or not or helpful or not. And if it ends up being difficult to articulate maybe we'll just delete it so we can go to sleep eventually. But so I wonder if, and I'll just go ahead and have you make those changes, Audrey, if that's okay, is put an enter after the first sentence. So develop a recommended and then before this go to the next line. And then from, sorry, I'm gonna, this is gonna just be, I just feel like I'm micromanaging you, but I don't know how else to do this. That's good. How it has to be, how it has to be. So actually grab that sentence again and then after police department services, put that in after, no, I meant after by providing. I'll put this. Right after the two words by providing, yeah. Yeah, sorry, put it after the by providing so it won't make grammatical sense, but we'll fix that. And then delete, this will include, or just this will include, yep, and then delete that. And then capitalize and analysis. And I also, and we can talk about this later, but I don't like feasibility at all. I really want, I think we said in one of the things that we wanted to get away from that language for them determining feasibility and we just wanted to have the benefits and barriers. And I know you changed that, Stephanie and happy to hear you're, okay, it's on that. And then for three, yeah, you can delete three now. And then I think we deleted this. So I don't know if this is one that we want to keep or not, but I think we deleted that up top. But I do think we at some point want to talk about, I assume we at some point want to have a discussion on what makes sense to have it be PD and what it does it and what that implies for staffing as a city councilor. I feel like I want to say that I want that from the joint committee. And I don't know if that's asking for too much. So I'll let you all discuss this, but how does, how does that first start on the change at least? So sorry, I'm still squinting on this. I think that, so just again, and I deferred people that have more experience working with RFPs than I do, which is just about zero, but I'm not gonna have zero experience, but I would prefer, so just for clarity's sake, I would prefer something like, you know, in the end goal section something like, the joint committee has the following goals. One, two, three. And then if it said the selected council should be able to help the joint committee achieve those goals, just so that's, again, because it still feels to me as though this is, the request is that the joint, I'm sorry, the request that the consultants do those four steps rather than the consultant help the joint committee do those four steps. So that seems like it's still ambiguous to me, whereas if it just says, the joint committee has these goals and we want the consultant to help us to achieve those, that seems more legible to me. I think that's fair. Are people okay with me continuing to make changes with that understanding then? I just always go by, if I don't hear anything, I'm gonna do it. So... I'm okay with that. Great, so instead put end goal, so change that from the selected consultant to just put the joint committee has the following goals. And then can you put an enter, so develop a recommended list of Burlington Police Department Services return and then tab for now. And then, and then same thing on three, put develop a recommendation for models to identify approving stopping levels tab for now. And then on two, put a recommendation or develop a recommendation on policing alternatives to, I don't know, implement for now. And then again, enter or return and tab. Great, so then the tabs we can remove or we could specifically call out, therefore the consultant should provide this or something like this, or we can make that. Anyway, I'll leave that with you all for now, but maybe that's helpful. So we could pull those out to the bottom or we could put that sentence in front of every A or after every A. Anyone have an opinion on this? I was wondering why you don't wanna just make the sentence longer, the one, two, three, four, I mean, or yeah, I haven't. I think developing a recommended list, number one, developing a recommended list of Burlington Police Department Services, you don't like it as a longer sentence like by providing a recommended menu of service to enhance or reduce or remove current services as being one long sentence with the appropriate. Because I think it's important what you've written here. I don't wanna take any of it out. I think if you have to have a tab and you wanna just define, further define number one by saying, provide a recommended menu of services, you'll just need providing, provide a recommended menu of services to add or enhance and reduce or remove current services. I'm having a hard time following that thought that you need. I'm struggling with it to carry. Yeah, so I would suggest, and so my initial suggestion essentially was, all of the tabbed A's just kind of get them out of that section, right? So the Joint Committee has the following goals, one, develop a recommended list, blah, blah, two, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Reflections should be able to just help the Joint Committee achieve these goals, including by, you know, A, providing recommended menu of services, you know, providing an analysis of the benefits of embarrassed policing alternatives, providing framework for decision-making and the menu of services, et cetera, right? So instead of the tabs, you're gonna summarize with that language that's in the tabs, great. Correct. Yes, I wasn't gonna have to do the final format, I was just trying to separate people with our goal versus their actions, so. All right, that was my understanding of what was going on there, thank you. I'm sorry, I dropped off for a minute, I don't know what happened to my internet. And then the weird one is the creating a transition plan, is that something, we're doing something we want them to do and I don't know the right answer to that. My guess is that that's probably beyond the scope of this. You certainly can ask them for input on that, but I think asking them to work on a transition plan is a different scope. Great. I think it's an, yes, yes, you're right. Ultimately, some of that's gonna have to be done, but I think that's a joint committee. Last city council. Councilor Hightower, I'm gonna have to jump on this call because I have to do a presentation at 7.30. I just wanna say that I support this RFP. I think we've dealt with the more substantive issues, so I just wanna register my support for this before I leave. Great, thank you so much. All right. I would say that summarized my position just so that everybody knows where the group is headed. See you all. Bye Steph. Great, and I'm gonna keep my camera off because I seem to have unstable internet now as well. Great, so this is what we have now and goal being divided between the joint committee's goals and then what the consultant should do to help us meet those goals. Thoughts on this. I'm sorry, thoughts on, could you repeat? Yeah, if this is, we just made a lot of changes, so I just wanna make sure we pause in that this is what folks want to see. The only question that I had was about create a transition plan for handing off next steps to community stakeholders and city staff. I did think I heard that that wasn't something that was beyond the scope. Commissioner Suguino, and I just, I'm reading it on my phone and I can't find, I think she's right, so I'm not sure where that sentence is gonna go. So my understanding was that Commissioner Suguino suggested that that's beyond the scope of the consultant, but if the thought is that that is one of the goals of the joint committee then it can stay in the section where it is. Okay, gotcha. Right, right, that makes sense. Great, then other thoughts on the end goal section in particular. So I should have asked this earlier, but on the first point as to what the selected consultant will be, should be providing. When it says a recommended menu of services to add or enhance, we're saying a recommended menu of BPD services, like are we adding or I'm not, I guess I'm having, okay, or the reduction or removal of BPD services, is that I'm not trying to reword it, I'm just, I want to make sure I'm understanding what this sentence is. It's all about BPD services, right? So I think there's two ways it could be interpreted and we should decide is it's either to provide a recommended menu of city services to add or enhance, reduce or remove, or BPD in particular, and I don't have, I don't know how we want to frame that. I think it might make sense to put city there. I thought city. That's fine, I think as long as we're, we just needed, we need sort of, it's clear what the services are worth, wanting them to recommend. Does that look all right? It does to me. Okay, then can you scroll down just a little bit so we can, do we want to keep this part in here, that last part, the overarching goal? I don't have any problems with that, the overarching, anybody else? Great. Then I hearing only one opinion to leave it in, I propose that we leave that in. So final thanks, that was the hardest part. So I think we got through the rough part. Any final thoughts on the scope of work in particular? Moving on to possible guidance and support formats. Did folks have changes here? No, I did not. And then that final section, which is supervision and key dates for deliverables. Great. Then we're on to consultant prerequisites. And Audrey, if you can just grab the text from above as we go into it. And then, yeah, you can just put it somewhere for now. And maybe Randall will have an opinion on where that makes sense. Do folks have changes to this section? I don't either. I have one not significant change but just a request for clarification. This is going to be on item M of what should be number two, subject matter expertise. It currently says, transforming the system, the criminal commission report, et cetera. I'm just proposing that before the words transforming the system, the following phrase is added. Criminal justice and police reform proposals such as, so then it would read, criminal justice and police reform proposals such as transforming the system, the criminal commission report, et cetera. Otherwise, and I'll just say quickly, the reason why I'm suggesting that is simply the two words transforming the system, so the two phrases transforming the system and the criminal commission report don't provide I think enough detail about what's going on with section M and why that would be different from what's happening in section N. Yeah, I agree with that change. Great. Other changes to this section? I'll have any. None which are substantive. Great. And I assume, and maybe whoever cleans this up, are we okay with what will become O, then parsing down that, that experience section until this is going so much more smoothly than I thought it would, based on how we started. Great. Then more general thoughts on prerequisites. So I'm assuming then that the thing which would be O would just be something like familiarity with PSP, PSAP based and this direct dispatch call and take, et cetera. Great. Any final thoughts on prerequisites? I don't have any. Great. Then moving on to submission guidelines. We are one, I assume that these will go to Shannon again. And then last time we gave a couple of recommendations on the prerequisites. I think we will have 30 days to, to respond. But I also want to know that Thanksgiving is someone who usually responds to RFP. I want to know that Thanksgiving is in that period. So making it do right after Thanksgiving seems a little cool to me. But would take other recommendations on when we think about RFPs. I think we will have learned from the last process. I think we will have people fill out the forms beforehand. So I think we'll just find a way to enable us to do that. And then we can do the calculating off-line since that's not done as part of the public meeting anyway. But what do folks think in terms of a good deadline for the RFP? Yeah, I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. Yeah. I'm happy to defer to those with more practical experience with responding to such things. Yeah. Maybe extended to a, maybe the 18th of December. That's a third Friday of December. How much, how much, because I. I want to make sure that we, we review it. So how much time, how many days do you want? How much time do you need? How much time do you need to get together and discuss? So in between, that would mean that you read the RFPs. You using new scoring sheet that we will have developed. To score the RFPs. And then you'll just come back ready to discuss. So how much time do people need between getting it. And having that meeting. And when are folks open to having that meeting? I would think. Yeah. In my opinion, a week would be enough. Would be ample time to go through them. Yeah. I want to just be clear on what you're saying. Zariah. Councilor Hightower. So I think. Are we. Sorry. Are we thinking that it's going to be more than 30 days for this to come back to us? Are we. Yeah. So I more just in 30 days would mean we'd probably make it do the. Like first week of December, which is the week after Thanksgiving, which often means that somebody will be working on this over Thanksgiving. So I would propose that we extend that by at least a week to make it do on the 14th or something like that. And then I want to know how much time folks need to review it. So if it's a week. Sorry, I'm also not thinking out loud. If we make it do the 14th, then we have till the 21st to review it, but then that would mean. Either. We make it do the Friday before so that we meet the week before Christmas or we're meeting early the week of Christmas. I think I'm also asking about availability. We'll have a small, small family in the time of COVID. So I will be around. Yeah. I will too. I don't. I don't see that my holiday schedule is going to be jam packed with anything. I don't have a big family, but. They all go to school in Montpelier. So we may not. Be gathering. Same. No change. So how do folks feel about making it do. Choo choo choo. Yeah. Maybe the. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Choo choo choo. Yeah. Maybe the. Fourteenth or sometimes the week of the 14th. And then we plan to meet the next week, the week of the. 21st. For me. Yeah, it works for me. I mean, I'm not working on it or I would do it a week earlier. I mean, if we're all available, that's usually work wise. A good week, slow. So. The first week of December. The. Well. The 20. Okay. Right. So. It's good. Good for me. Great. So then let's plan on making it do. The 15th of December. And we will meet. Hopefully on the 22nd. Yeah, maybe we should check with joy on whether that's going to work. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. With that turnaround time. To get it posted, but. I think we worked out a lot of the issues with posting last time. So it should be a lot quicker at this time. Okay. Thanks, Julie. So just a couple of questions. Once it is posted, can we get an email stating. That it's been posted. That it's been posted. That it's been posted. That it goes to the posting. And is it also possible as the RFPs come in that they be forwarded to us. So we can have a jump on reviewing them. Shannon or joy. I think I see Shannon nodding. Certainly. I can do all that. Thank you. Thanks so much. Great. So happy to hear any thoughts on contracting. Yeah. I didn't look at that section. I'm not going to lie. Or anything beyond that, but other than that, we also do still have the executive summary. That we have not reviewed. Yeah, I just took this as boilerplate in terms of RFP from the city, but maybe I'm wrong. Yeah, this is, this is the city's standard RFP language. Right. As such as well. I had no comments about it. So I'm just going to take this back up to the. Executive summary on page one. I just had one edit myself. If I can kick us off on the second paragraph. Where it says who, what, where, and the how got deleted. So if we can put that back in. Where and how the Burlington police department. Yep. Right there. Other thoughts on the executive summary. So I mean, if I understand your edits correctly, that is. The kind of edit that I have in my. Grammatical minutiae, I take it the unproblematic. So I won't go through them. You do know that this is going to get sent to you, Randall. Go up. Here you go. I'm also happy if it gets sent out and I just don't know about it. Like I don't mind. I don't mind if it gets sent out. I don't mind if it gets sent out. I don't mind if it gets sent out. I don't mind if it gets sent out. I don't mind if it gets sent out. Flawed work being sent out as long as I don't see it. Great. So with that, I do think we need a volunteer to. Be the last. Hands on this. And I would love to not volunteer myself this time. I am happy to do it. If I can just get this copy in the next day. So I can do it while it's fresh in my mind. I'm happy to do that. I'm happy to do that. To do that. If folks are comfortable with that. I'll happily send you my. Notes. And I think that that is within the bounds of open meeting. Okay. So. I would love a motion. That. To. Accept this document with additional changes as suggested by. Randall and. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry again. And now I'm afraid that I'm saying your name wrong. Oh. A shireen. That's why I don't use the Ayan because it really confuses people. Okay. That's so funny. Cause my, my father has a, never mind. Long story. Okay. Great. So shireen. And. With suggestions from shipping and Randall. That won't be. Substantive in terms of the grammar. And then to have city staff post this. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry again. Once they get the final draft. As a RFP. I move that this document be adopted subject to final change it. Final, final non substantive provisions by sure. I second that. Great. Moved by commissioner harp. I didn't catch you seconded that was that. Oh, that was me. Sorry. Yep. Seconded by commissioner. Any discussion. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed. Great. That passes unanimously. Nice job. And we will hopefully never do this process again. Great. Thank you all so much for your patience. We do have one more item on the agenda. I'm happy to move forward with that item. I'm happy to table it for our next meeting. I can make it really quick. That sounds great. There are no updates. This is on the. Equitable. Or for chair, the chief and I have not connected on a follow up. So anyway, I think we should put it off. Cause I think that was the next step was for us to get more information for everyone. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Just do you need help with that? Or anything I can do or anybody else. I'm going to make a note to check in with. Chief. Just have a. Circle back around with one another. So. Everybody is super, super busy. So. So Sherin, do you need a motion to table that? Why don't I just make a motion to table that item to the next meeting. Give you some time. With a second. Second. Great. Moved by councilor probably now seconded by commissioner. Murphy. Any discussion. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed. That passes unanimously. And then the only other thing we have is the next. Meeting agenda item. I guess. Knowing that we won't have the. We won't. So. Sorry. My next steps are to reach out to the folks who. Submitted an RFP and let them know of our decision for the community facilitator. So I can do that. This week. The folks who did. I don't know. I don't know. They won't have a contract until. The end of November, because the city council won't meet till the 23rd. So. And then we do still have the equitable sharing discussion, but it sounds like. That is something, you know, Sherin and I, Sherin and. I don't think we need to meet again. Super quickly in the next two weeks or so, but I. I'm happy to do something earlier. If we want to get to the equitable discussion. Before then, or. I guess I will leave it to the committee in terms of. When you would like to meet again. What if, if I can propose that we set our meeting. As we discussed around the week of the 21st. But if chief mirad and I have any information of value before then, maybe I can just check in with you on whether we could set a meeting. It's going to be tough. Given there's Thanksgiving though folks aren't going to be doing much for Thanksgiving, but. If that worked for you so that we don't. Artificially set a meeting if we don't. I don't think we need to do that until like, December 13th. I assume. Joy. Let me. I'm making assumptions about how quickly the contracting mechanism goes through. So. I already have the contract pretty much drafted. So I think once it's approved by council, we should be able to get it done fairly quickly. So. I don't think we need to do that until like December 13th. I assume. Joy. Let me. I'm making assumptions about how quickly the contracting mechanism is going to go through. So I don't think we need to do that until it's approved by council. We should be able to get it done fairly quickly unless there are any major. Major issues that come up, which. I think we, we posted the draft contract with the RFP. So they should have already already seen it. So I don't think it should take you long. Great. Then can I propose a meeting for the week after Thanksgiving, November 30th through the fourth. I don't think it's going to be a week right now in my life. And if I don't have police commission. I wish I have. Every Wednesday now that I have two other city council committees. I have very few weeks left. Which is. Your face. Great. Could you, could you repeat the proposed date? Yes. So. I'm not a bit. I'm proposing the week of November. 30th. But I'm only available for two hour. Five to seven on the 30th or Thursday or Friday. So we could go to the week after if that doesn't work for folks. I can do it. I can do the Thursday. Yep. There's there works for me as well. Me too. Fantastic. So what time. Okay. Is five 30 still okay with. Yeah, you all is on because of his job. He can't make anything before six 30. Should we move to six 30. I'm fine with that. I'm completely open. So. Same. Great. Let's do six 30. Okay. So this is the third at six 30. Or maybe we can do six so we can handle the non substantive work. Okay. Did you say the third. The third of December. December. Okay. We've got a whole month. Yep. Great. Emotion. How sir. Hi, tower. It is to listen. Oh. I just don't want you to say. Okay. When I was thinking town of them a whole time and when I got on the phone with people, I was like, Oh, I'm glad you said it first. Okay. To live. Great. So. Thank you for sending Audrey already sent that to me. I just wanted to say thank you. Sorry. Sure thing. Fantastic. Then we're on to our last item, which is a motion to. To approve the motion. And adjourn. So moved. Elena seconded by commissioner Durfey. Any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed. That passes you minutes unanimously. Thank you all so much. Thank you.