 All right, you're good to go. Thank you. All right, everybody, welcome to the April 4th meeting of the Governance Organization and Legislation Committee or GOL. Athena, I haven't been reading the pursuant to the Chapter 20 part. Do you, legitimate question, do I need to read it every meeting? It's really over and above what we are legally required to do. We do it as kind of a regular practice, but. We, I'll go ahead, sounds fun. Pursuant to Chapter 20 of the Acts of 2021, extended by Chapter 22 and 107 of the Acts of 2022 and extended again by Chapter 2 of the Acts of 2023. This meeting is being conducted via remote means. I'm going to go ahead and call us to order and check to make sure each member of the committee can hear and be heard. Let's start with Councilor Ryan. I'm here. Welcome. Councilor Ate. Here. Awesome. And Patty Angelis. Here. All right. So Lynn has let us know she will be absent today. And we will see her next time. All right. We're going to go ahead and start with public comment. If any members of the public would like to make a public comment of up to three minutes, you can go ahead and raise your hand in Zoom. And we will call on you to make your comment. And I will give it about 30 seconds while I pull up the next thing as well. Okay. We are going to move on to seeing no hands. I'm going to move on to the first item on our agenda, which is the Children's Mental Health Week Proclamation. And Andy Steinberg has emailed me to let me know he's being added as a sponsor to this proclamation. So if we could bring Andy in as a panelist. I think he's speaking on me. Yeah, I think so. And I will pull this up since Lynn is not here. I'm happy to do. And it's, all right. Thank you. Hi, Andy. Are you with us? Okay, editing. Hi, how are you? I'm doing well. Welcome. Athena, what did you just ask me? Go or if you want me to bring it up. Oh, I don't, if it's easy for you to do it, but I don't mind if you'd rather I do it. Do you have the updated, I guess I only have a little pocket. Andy, is Mandy Jo joining us as well or is it just you? Oh, you're muted. I thought she would be here, but because I was, I'm here really because of the other. Yeah, I'm wondering if we should maybe start with that one and see if Mandy Jo joins us. Would that make more sense? Is anyone else joining for the Jewish American Heritage Proclamation? No. Okay. Why don't we start with that one and then that'll give Mandy a chance if she's joining us. We obviously just started the meeting. So, and then I think that, yes, Councilor Ryan. So Andy is the sponsor for the Jewish Proclamation or for the Children's Mental Health or both? Both. Andy is going to be added as the sponsor for the Children's Mental Health Proclamation, but Mandy I believe will be joining us. So we're going to start right now with Jewish American Heritage Month. Thank you. And with to that note, I believe Andy you had some updates to the version that we had in the packet that you sent me today. So let's do, Athena what would you say is the best method to go about this if Andy has an updated version? Should I share the version Andy sent me or should we make the changes on this version? The most up to date version together now that would be great. Okay. Let me, if you stop sharing, I'll share. And Andy I just want to confirm with you that this is the most up to date version that I'm now showing. This is the one that you sent me earlier today. I think the last part was. Yeah. Okay. So Andy, it would be helpful for us if you could share because the committee didn't have this version to view. If you as we're going through it could specifically identify what has changed in this one from the one that we had in our packets, that would be helpful. There's only one whereas class that has changed from what you had before. I believe that the sponsor list is correct. Okay. Great. So Andy, is there anything you'd like to say before we go through this line by line? I mean, in general terms, it's the same proclamation that we've issued for the past several years. And Dorothy Pam was a prime sponsor from the council side in prior years. And we've, it has been a team approach to writing it with Rabbi Weiner as the sort of lead community sponsor participating fairly fully. I think that it's probably not worth going through the whole thing section by section because you've seen it before but I did want to highlight the one section that changed which is the last whereas clause. And basically if you compare it with what was in prior years and I think what was in the version that was in the packet was dealing with the question of anti-Semitism but it was using anti-defamation league as the source of information. And we were looking for another version of our approach to address the issue and with different updated statistics. And so some of my fellow sponsors came up with the FBI piece that's noted and is available through the footnote at the bottom which you can click onto and get to it. And I think that it speaks for itself and it's just using a different source for the statistical information but covers the same topic. Okay, thank you. I know I have some slight grammatical edits to the paragraph that's been added just based on reading it now but we are gonna just start at the beginning and we typically do go paragraph by paragraph. Like you said, Andy, this has gone through GOL in the past without changes having been made since then so I don't anticipate anything major but I will give the GOL committee time to be pickier than committees past just in case. So GOL, please raise your Zoom hand if you see fit starting off any issues with the title or the sponsor list, I personally do not see any. Okay, Pat, if you're talking, you're muted. I just said I thought we could move on. Oh, thanks. Doesn't take long to... Next paragraph, first warehouse. Any issues here? Yes, Councillor Ate. I wasn't aware that this has gone through readings for several years and so I was going to be nitpicking but I'll refrain from that but point out a few things. So for this paragraph, it has the 350 year history of Jewish contributions to America and American culture and I was wondering when we speak of America, are we speaking of the American continents or are we speaking of the United States? Any thoughts from other committee members? I believe they mean United States of America. Councilor Pat D'Angelo, did you have something to say? Well, I sad to say I've never noticed that and thank you and I think we should change it. Councilor Ryan. I would be confident about changing the language. This is called the Jewish American Heritage Month Proclamation and unless there's a matter of just confusion or so on, I think we should let it be. Okay, Councillor Ate, do you feel strongly that this is something that's not clear in the resolution and we should vote on a change? I will say that it jumped out at me the first time I read it but I don't feel strongly enough. I guess just having it on the record is good enough for now. I mean, the middle ground that I'm seeing here would be this first one. Just change it to the United States of America and then the remainder of them can stay America. That makes sense. Does that seem like it might clarify it for everyone? So it would be Councilor Ryan. Is the sponsor okay with it? I was just about to ask. Yeah, thank you. Andy, does that sound okay? I think that's fine. Okay, thank you. Next, whereas, Councillor Ate. I'm not sure of the house style but the proclamation reads that. Should there be a comment after that? I think so because then a quote starts. Yeah. Next, whereas, whereas throughout our history. Councillor Ate, your hand is still up. Is that a new one or a remainder? Okay. Next one, whereas we celebrate, whereas as we celebrate, Councillor Ate, how are you muted? This is the all fits to work for Tikkun Olam, Repair of the World. I don't think it needs to be changed. I, when I read it the first time, if I hadn't known what Tikkun Olam meant, the phrase Repair of the World would have been a bit more confusing. I don't think it should go. I'm wondering if instead of commas, we could use a pair of dashes. Councillor Ate is proposing that it would read. I just messed that up. Would read like this. Are you saying delete the comma, put two dashes in? You could put in parenthesis with quotes or you could just put dashes. I think for many members of the Jewish community, it's a phrase they know very well. For members not of that community, it perhaps might help them to see that that's a translation of the Hebrew. I personally like that because there's also just a ton of commas in the sentence generally. So I think it breaks it up. Okay. Whereas in the expansion of faculty, Councillor Ate? They're speaking about time. So the suggestion I had was during the expansion of faculty. Are there any objections to changing the word into during? That's an improvement, I think. Thank you for your nitpicking. And you said you were holding back too. So I'm a little... I know, I told you. Your red-lined version is. Okay. Andy, are you okay with this so far? Any objections? I'm assuming you will raise them if you have them. Yes. Brian should just make that assumption. Thank you. All right. Next one. Whereas the institutions of our education. Here, actually, I did have a thought. Have led in programs. Is the sense here have been leaders in the United States or leaders in the world or the phrase have led in programs? I think I know what you mean. But in a sense, I don't really know what you mean because it's the idea is that in the field of education, higher education, essentially in the United States, is that the sense? And is there any way to make that? Do we need to make it clear? Right. You're saying have they led in terms of being first to have them or have they been leaders within them, within that field? Yeah. What is the leadership here? Is it leadership in the sense of the country as a whole in the academic world in the United States and the academic world and throughout the world? I assume they don't mean just an amourst. They're referring to a much larger. So that was just somewhat puzzling to me. Okay. Andy, do you have any thoughts on this? Not on this one because I would really have to go back to some of our community sponsors, probably. Maybe just leave it. Hilda Green, because she had to have the most experience to know and probably was the source of the thought here because of her, her husband's role at the university over a long period of time. I agree. It's confusing. I also, I think we could, if we wanted to move, change the phrasing, we could leave it or we could change it to institutions of higher education and amourst have. And leaders? I was going to say have had programs that have like supported programs in. Councilor Ette, did you have a thought on this? Yes. So speak to this paragraph and I would like us to go back to the previous one for some reason I skipped some things. So when I read this, what crossed my mind is preeminence as in that UMass has programs that are leading programs, preeminence programs in Jewish studies. But I think what George says might also be significant which is maybe UMass isn't just preeminence but was the forerunner of these programs. So it's unclear what it is. Councilor D'Angelo or Pat, sorry. You can call me whatever it doesn't matter. Just not Pat C or Patty. I like the idea have been leaders in or I'm not sure how you said it now George have been leaders in developing programs in Jewish studies including Holocaust and genocide studies. I think Councilor Ette has put his finger on it. It's the idea of preeminence which maybe this captures. I'm going to remind us. I'm going to just gently remind us we are looking for clarity, consistency and actionability here. So whatever we do is towards those efforts and those efforts only we are not co-sponsors of this none of us on the committee are co-sponsors of this. So I want to just make sure that as we're thinking about edits where we're not seeking to change it we're seeking to make it work. Yeah, but I think this clarifies something important. I don't disagree. I want to remind us of our purpose here. Councilor Ette. I think I agree with you on that. So I'd like us to go through the previous paragraph. Okay. So are we sorry. So before we do that, are we good with this shift? Seeing no objection. Okay. Great. The only thing I could offer is that when you complete your work on this and go on to other agenda items I can try and call sponsored Greenbaum and ask her if she knows what the source of this was and if I can get an answer back from her I can come back on and raise my program. I won't be, I'll be back in the audience at that point but I can always raise my hand if I have anything to contribute. So Andy, to that note, we can wait to vote on this until later on in the meeting if you'd like so that any other edits can be made prior to our vote. Does that work? Just a matter of you wanna check on the basis on which this was included originally because this was one probably that was Dorothy Pam consulted numbers of people put it together and how she came to this. Therefore is something that I don't know. Okay. We'll vote. Dorothy or not. I feel comfortable with the change we've made because I do not believe it changes the content of the words. I think it does just clarify what was there initially a bit. I'll leave that up to you, Andy, if you'd like to. Councillor Ate, what was- I would assume that it's okay and I'll let you know if she has an object, if I reach her and she has anything to say but I would go ahead and just get it done with. Okay, thank you. Sorry, I think I froze for a second but it caught you up after. Okay, Councillor Ate, your comments on this paragraph. Late 1950s shouldn't have an apostrophe because we're speaking not of one year but of several years and that would also work for 60s as well. And then the who's, it isn't at all clear who is being referred to, who's concerned, the university or the faculty. I think it's the faculty, based on my reading, right? Let's see, because it says open to hiring Jewish faculty who, speaking of the Jewish faculty, went on to make significant contribution and who's going back to the same. I think the who and the who's tie back to the faculty now. Yeah, I think it's okay the way it is. Okay, we're gonna jump forward. Where is the Yiddish Hook Center? Okay. Next, whereas Amherst is part of the growing Jewish farming movement. Okay. Oh, Councilor Aditya. So you may not be able to hear this, but in the background actually is Jeopardy and it seems I'm very slow on pointing to where we're supposed to go through. I'm wondering about the Comer after 1980. I do not have strong feelings and so I'm happy to delete it if it feels true to you. That makes sense to me. Okay. Okay. Next one, anything? Okay, we're back, we're on to this new one. I had a couple in here. I think I just wanna rework the phrasing. When I read this, it's, I think the way I have it in my head, it would read, whereas according to a 2023 Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI report titled supplement to the 2021 eight crime statistics, comma, a total of 1,590 incidents related to religion were reported in the United States. I'm gonna start with that and type it out and can we go from there? Is that okay? Okay. Three Federal Bureau of Investigation report. Oh, sorry. Sandy, shush. Sorry, I'm gonna mute. Okay. I'm glad everybody got to hear the dog voices that we use in this house. A total of 1,590 incidents. Oh, this is what I was curious about. Is it, can we say hate related incidents or like incidents just feel so broad to me? Is it incidents or is it hate crimes? Oh, Andy, you're muted, sorry. I think like by the, you do myself. The, I looked at the report that's the piece that you get to when you do the click onto the link. Because I wasn't the one who did the original writing. I did some editing because the wording was really awkward when I saw it the first time. But that is the way that the FBI report, I think, stated it, if I recall correctly. It talked about the number of incidents related to religion, meaning hate crime incidents. Councilor Ryan. I would just point out the title of the report is Supplement to the 2021 Hate Crime Statistics. That was what. Yeah, I think that would, to most people reading it, they would assume that any incident in such a report would be an incident of hate crime. Okay. So not just. Okay. So I think it's okay. I think it's okay. Incidents related to religion were reported. The largest category of religious hate crimes reported. I think this is what throws me as we call it hate crimes here, we call it incidents here. Right. We reported we're anti-Jewish. Is anti-capitalized here? And a Jewish is, but. I don't think it is capitalized. Shouldn't be, you know. Okay. Now you make a good point. I don't know. I think it should stay the largest category of religious hate crimes were reported were anti-Jewish and so they were more than half by some of the religion related incidents. So that comes directly from the report. And I think it should stay there. Sorry. It should stay capitalized. No, no. Oh, what are you talking about? I'm talking about the whole rest of it. Oh, okay. Councillor Ryan. Done. Okay. Councillor Ate. Just wondering about the three instances of reported or at least two of reported and one of reported. If we have any synonyms we could use. Okay, hang on. I feel like we could just take out the second reported. Yeah. I think, again, we need to be careful. We're not stylists. It's just clear. It's really about clarity. Okay. And this is clear, I think. So let's not get too picky about, you know, how I'd write it or you'd write it unless we feel there's a clear confusion or some kind of un-clarity. We're trying to correct. And here I think it's just, we're getting into style and I don't think that matters. Thank you, George. That's a good reminder. I agree with you. All right, last, last now therefore, or only now therefore, sorry. Okay. All right. I'm going to stop sharing. Andy, are you comfortable with us voting on this item now? Any, if you have amendments, you can bring them to the council as well. If they're, if that paragraph is, if we did it incorrectly. And I'll say it. You know, I'm comfortable with it. Now just consult with Hilda if I don't get her tonight then gives me a little more time. Yeah, no worries. All right. Then I moved to find the Jewish American Heritage Month proclamation for 2024, clear, consistent and actionable. Is there a second? Second the answer list. Thank you. It's okay. And I'm going to call the vote. Senator Ater. Hi. Councilor Pat Dangelis. Hi. I am an I and councilor Ryan. Hi. All right. Thank you. That passes unanimously with, well, passes three in favor, none opposed, one absent. I'm going to go ahead and save this. And Athena, I'm going to email it to you right now. So I don't forget. Okay. What was the vote again? It was four in favor. None of them. And one absent. Three and four are basically interchangeable. George. Okay. Joel amended. If I don't do this now, I will forget. So I'm just doing it now. Okay. We're going to move on to our next proclamation. We still do not have Mandy here, but we're going to just quickly go through the 2024 children's mental health week proclamation. Andy, you're welcome to stay in for this. If you'd like. All right. This is my reminder. We are doing not stylistic changes, just clarity, consistency and actionability. Okay. So I've made one edit so far because councilor Steinberg or councilor Hankey informed me that councilor Steinberg was being added as a sponsor. That's my only edit so far. Okay. Councilor Ryan. So I take it there are actually two different proclamations. One was about awareness. And this one's about acceptance. And so that's, this is a totally different proclamation. This, the last one we did was child abuse awareness month. This one is children's mental health. Okay. Yeah, they are different. They are different things. It's about abuse. So there are three of them. Which one? Awareness, awareness, acceptance, and abuse. Sorry. I'm sorry. That sentence was funny. I think that this, the title of this one was, we had been calling it mental health awareness, but it was mental health acceptance. I think we had the title wrong. All right. Yeah. There are only two. The week is called children's mental health awareness week. But that's an event. This is a resolution or proclamation. Excuse me. We should check that because in the proclamation it's referred to as mental health acceptance week. Okay. All right. Okay. But we're going to start at the beginning. So we've got Councilor's hand again, Steinberg already. No, okay. Go ahead. Councilor Ate, first to our ass. Oh, no, please. Continue. Was it about the first one? No. I don't know if this plays into your clarity, but it is children's mental health awareness week, but hinged on children and youth. And I was wondering, is there a distinction or is there no distinction between children and youth? I don't know the answer to that. Yeah. Anyone else have insights into, I think because it's utilized so often, I believe that children is probably referring to like under 16 and youth is under 18, but I don't know. That would be my guess. I think that because I think that having both of them makes it more clear, not less clear. And so I would, I'd lean on the side of taking it in versus going through and taking it out everywhere. Just to be clear, I didn't intend to take it out. It was more priority for my sake. I think it's a valid question. Yeah. Okay. Second, whereas any issues? Third, whereas? Just, I don't know whether to raise this here or later because there's a separate whereas clause way down that seems to say pretty much the same thing. So I don't know if we want to deal with that now. So yeah, you've got your cursor was right. This one and this one. Yeah. I don't see a lot of difference. And I'm wondering if one of them can be taken out or maybe there's a difference and I'm just missing it. I think that this one is stronger. And I do think they're saying exactly the same thing. No, no. So we would move to strike this one because it is confusing to have to. It's repetitive. And it's just saying the same thing again. It seems unless the sponsors feel that it's, I just don't see a different point here. Yeah. I'm going to ask one of you all to keep an eye on the participants list, just in case Mandy joins. That's okay. Thank you. She's not here yet, but, or she's not here, but no, I agree, George. I think that this is a really repetitive paragraph. So I referenced, I can't. Okay. Next one. Whereas children and youth with the most intensive needs? Intense needs. Sorry, intense needs. No, fine. Whereas it is important. This one changes the word to adolescence. I caught it before you said anything, counselor. I had to, because I knew, I knew it, I knew it. I agree that it's not consistent. I do not think that it's so inconsistent that it's a problem, but I think it's worth noting for this, for next year, to the sponsors. Next, whereas we're as the involvement and partnership, but I do think that answers our question a little bit. Yeah, I think it should just be children and youth. I mean, it's just, I mean, take a consistency for, you know. All right, all right. I was trying to, but I know, I know, but yeah, it's, right. Okay. Again, let's sponsors want to make a point about it, but they're, yeah, they don't, right. Or change it all to adolescence. Oh, right. Let's not get wild, y'all. We've got so much more to do today. Let's move on. Wait a minute. You're causing a nuisance preview of coming interactions. Okay. Councillor Hanicky is now in the attendee group. Amazing. We can ask her, Athena, could you bring Councillor Hanicky in to the room? On it. Thank you so much. Welcome, Mandy. I'm sure you've really missed GOL. So welcome back. We have got a couple of questions for you. Okay. Okay. So I just want to run you really quickly through the changes we made so far, as you see on the screen, we've got the resolution or the proclamation pulled up. What is proclamation? So George pointed out this paragraph right here, our nation's future is very much a, oh, I lost it. Where did it go, George? Right here. It's very much a duplicate in terms of meaning of this paragraph down here. So we just got the shorter one. Okay. And then our main question centered around the difference between children and youth. And then in one place, the term adolescence was used. Could you clarify the difference between children and youth? And would you prefer the term youth or adolescence? Or is it intentionally adolescence here and nowhere else? So I think youth is intended to refer to adolescents and older children. And children is sort of like elementary aged and younger. Most of this, nearly all of it, comes from a standard proclamation put out by an organization. And I think that's what I gathered, that that was what they were referring to and sort of a split difference of that. Okay, thank you. Sorry, y'all, I turned my video off because my internet connection got a little unstable. So I apologize for my video being off. I'm still here. Counselor Ryan. So Mandy Oresh now was just to be consistent and to use children and youth. So that's why we made that change because it's used the children and youth everywhere else. Mandy, is that okay? Are we? Okay. Okay. Next one. Is this where we are? Yeah. Involvement and partnership of family. Counselor. Is there a question? Counselor, did you have your hand up? No, okay, you put it down, sorry. I had my hand up. Oh, you did? Okay. Yes. I'm wondering how the sentence reads, whereas the National Federation of Families initiated children's mental health acceptance week together with families. I'm wondering the identity of these families. Is there a specific families or it's broadly families? Mandy? I'm not sure. I quite understand the question. Involvement of family members of the children and youth. Are you saying, is that like a specific type of family member or is it? I think I've lost track of where we are. We're on this paragraph right here. Oh, were you talking about this one? Okay, I think I was speaking about the one that the, whereas the National Federation of Families initiated, yeah. Okay. And you're saying this was the family's part in question? Since we're speaking about initiation to initiate something would imply that the actors are visible, something specific, but the family seems vague. So would it say, oh, sorry, Councilor Pat. I think it should simply read that the National Federation of Families initiated blah, blah, blah to focus on the acceptance because when it says together with families, it's a federation of families. So I think it doesn't make any sense to have. It's still, yeah. It's implied in the federation. Mandy, do you have an issue if we strike this? No. All right, we can do this. Whereas good mental health is a key component in a child's healthy development. Any issues here? My question is on the next one, it has said acceptance everywhere else and then it says awareness here. I just wanna confirm that we call it mental health awareness week. Everything else is acceptance week. So they've changed the name this year. Okay. I was wondering at the beginning before you got here, we were like, what's it called? Yeah, so this is the first year it's being called Children's Mental Health Acceptance Week. In the past, it's always been Children's Mental Health Awareness Week. So should we change this to be acceptance or is our, are we calling our week Awareness Week? I believe the title of the proclamation this year, did I change it to acceptance? You did. I did, but in 2021, we celebrated it as Awareness Week. How about, yeah, I mean, I think it's fine. I think that's fine. Cause it does, it clarifies it down here that we're calling it acceptance week this year. So I think that that's, we'll figure it out next year. Okay, I'm moving on y'all. We got so much on the agenda. Yes, we need to move on. Complex mental health needs, okay. This year's theme, this is, wait, hang on, this doesn't really make sense to me. In celebrating this year's theme, lighting the path to social justice for children and youth, it is fitting and to increase public awareness. Help me out here. Yes, and sorry. No, you're fine. Okay. Now therefore, looks great. We're good? Yep. Okay. I move that GOI'll find the 2024 Children's Mental Health Acceptance Week Proclamation clear, consistent and actionable as edited. Is there a second? There's no second. Seriously guys? I second. Thank you. I was calling the vote. I can remember who's on my committee. Pat. Hi. Councilor Ate. Hi. Councilor Ryan. Hi. And I am an I as well. That is foreign favor. Got the math right this time. Zero opposed, one absent. Andy and Mandy, thank you very, very much for joining us for this. I appreciate it a lot. Thank you for your attention to the proclamations. We are nothing if not detailed. All right, thank you both. So we are going to now move. And Mandy, I'm saying this quickly before you leave because I don't know if you want to stay for the, I don't know if we have a quorum if you stay. We do, I think. Frick, are you on CRC? Oh yeah. Yeah, so we have to boot. I think we have to boot Mandy back to the audience. Yep, okay. So we are now going to, actually wait, do we still have a quorum of CRC? What? Pat, are you on CRC? Yes. Councilor Ate, are you on CRC? When you discuss nuisance bylaw, I can go away. I'm going to defer to Athena on what to do here. Athena, we were going to bring the chair of CRC into the room, but that would give us a quorum of that committee. Do you have a recommendation on what we should do? Yeah, as long as, I think it's fine to bring Pam in as long as she's not engaging in the deliberation with the committee. So the committee can ask questions about what's going on, but I'm going to say that as long as she's not, participating in the discussion and conversation about the vote, then that's fine. So I brought Pam in. And then, yeah, if Mandy wants to come in, I think she's already left. Okay. She's like, Matt, you're good. Thanks for coming in, Pam. I'm assuming that you heard what I said about participating just as a, to give some information to the committee and not participating in the discussion so that we don't get into a deliberation. You're muted, so, I'm sorry, we're talking what I was talking, but I couldn't hear you. I heard that I should just give facts, information, and you all will deliberate. Thank you very, very much, Pam, and welcome. Councilor Ren, would you like me to give Pam an opportunity to give an overview first, or do you want to jump in? I just had a question, I guess a point of order. I probably just missed it, but we're changing the agenda. Order? Oh, sorry, yes. I was just about to say that. I'd like to move this up on the agenda because we have Pam with us to discuss it. And because we're going to see where we get with this, but it is on the council agenda for Monday, tentatively. We may have to pull it from the council agenda if we don't vote it tonight, but I wanted to respect Pam's time and bump this up. Thank you for pointing that out, though, I appreciate it. So unless there's any objections from the committee, I'd like to move this up on the agenda to discuss it next. Okay, seeing none. Pam, welcome. Pam is here as the chair of the CRC committee and we are looking at the proposed bylaw 3.26, nuisance property. Pam, do you want to give us an overview of this before we jump in? I'd be happy to acknowledge that we have two CRC members here who also participated in this. Sorry, I wasn't dressed for meeting tonight. An overview, the nuisance bylaw was acknowledged as needing an update pretty early on in the process when we discussed the rental registration bylaw. They are separate, they are standalone, and ultimately they are, in fact, almost entirely standalone. At the beginning, we tried to link nuisance infractions with the ability to obtain a rental permit and that was ultimately struck down. However, in the rental registration bylaw that we started to talk about on Monday, a cause of losing a permit or a consideration of losing a permit might in fact be tied to sort of the amount of nuisance caused by that particular property. So the rental registration bylaw addresses that the nuisance bylaw does not say any more. X number of infractions might lose you your permit. So that's kind of in general. I think the intention ought to be clear and that is it's never our goal to penalize for bad behavior, if you will, but actually to correct the actions that disturb other people's quiet enjoyment of their residents. So that said, we crafted a bylaw that bolsters what we currently have in the book and it broadened the scope from being primarily a nuisance house party place serving alcohol to underage students, underage people, and it broadened it a little bit to say that we don't differentiate between a rental property or a owner occupied property. It does clarify that the owner and manager, but especially the owner is notified on the third offense so that they have a bit of skin in the game and they are able to, from the start, establish guidelines for behavior appropriate to their rental. And we felt that it was important that they are already engaged in the process in today's bylaw, but we just made it much clearer. I'm sorry to interrupt you, Pam. I just have a point of order from the chair for the chair. We have in front of us a document that has a whole host of comments by the lawyers. On this document. And I assume that that's what we're gonna be talking about. And we are just concerned with clarity, consistency and actionability. That's correct. Councilor Rooney is giving an excellent sort of presentation that she will give again to the council explaining the origin and logic and purpose of this bylaw. But I think unless I'm mistaken, we're not interested in the origin purpose of this bylaw. We're just interested in the lawyer's comments and whether the sponsors are okay with them and whether this document is clear, consistent and actionable. So I would like us to get to that. Yeah, or am I missing something here? Not really, but we're not just concerned with the lawyer's comments. We're looking at this as a whole document. Just as we would if there weren't a legal opinion, we'd be looking at the bylaw for clarity, consistency, actionability. We're not just looking at the legal comments that were received back, although we can certainly see if there are questions that the way Athena framed it beautifully, I'm gonna try to repeat it and then she can tell me how I did it right or wrong. But if the answer to one of the questions asked by the legal team is a matter of clarity, consistency or actionability, it is appropriate for us to try to answer that question. If it is not, that is something that CRC needs to handle themselves. But we are looking at this document, yes, for clarity, consistency, actionability, not substantive review. Right, so I would think we should just go directly to the document and to the changes that have been made in it sort of section by section and figure out what has to go to CRC for their determination and what, if anything, we might want to examine for the point of view clarity, consistency and actionability. I got legal decision really is about actionability, if I understand it, you know, and so that CRC is gonna have to deal with that and response to the lawyer's concerns. So I think we should just go to the document and just work our way through it or at least start to, I don't know if we can get through it all tonight because we have other things we have to do. I know, I know. So I'm not sure that this is in my mind, priority number one, given all the other things we're trying to do, but that's a decision that will have to make us a group I guess. Thank you, I am gonna give us, I've got timing in my head, I'm not gonna say it out loud because I don't wanna be wrong on my timing. So I'm, but I have timing in my head. Athena? I think what Pam is sharing about the purpose of the by-law is gonna be helpful in terms of actionability because the committee's gonna be, I said actionability on purpose, counselor, D'Angelo's in terms of actionability because the committee wants to make sure that the by-law is doing the thing that it sets out to do. So what Pam is sharing about the intent of the by-law is important for the conversation about actionability. You wanna make sure that the intent of the by-law is meeting the text of the by-law. If there are questions about enforcement, I spoke with Captain Chief Ting this morning and I can get him on to make sure that the enforcement is in line with the intent of the by-law. If there are any changes in terms of the language in that regard. Thank you. Pam, is there anything you didn't say about the intent that you would like to add? I had a couple more points that would just help, perhaps give a little bit of a context in your consideration. I have to admit, I only saw the KP law comments late this afternoon. I think when I actually asked you for them, I had not found them in my email yet, but they had been sent to me. Just a couple of the things we identified an opportunity to seek response costs. That is something that KP law responded to. And we also include activities that are deemed violation of state law, which is possession and underage drinking. We also include violations of zoning by-law, which is new and that is excessive lighting, parking, and then general by-laws, including noise, road, and sidewalk obstruction, littering, and refuse collection. So those are sort of the broad categories that constitute news. And I'd be happy to just be quiet and listen to your conversation. Okay. Athena, do we need to move Pam back to the audience or can she stay here? She can stay if you have questions about what CRC did in terms of what language they chose and so on, then she can answer those questions. I've been trying to stop doing a thumbs up because I'm doing my scuba diving certification and this is like emergency go back to the surface, but I can't break the habit. So you'll see me do a lot of this today. All right. I'm gonna try to share my screen again. If I start to freeze, I may, Athena, ask you to switch to sharing screen. I don't know if that's part of the problem, but... Okay. I'm happy to start off. Okay. Here we go. I think what we're gonna do is I'm gonna just start, I'm gonna say numbers and letters and if you've got thoughts on it, again, not stylistic, clarity, consistency, actionability and we will look at also the legal comments as well. Let me make this a little bit bigger. Okay. Starting with purpose, any... And I can't really see, please use your raise your zoom hand because it pops you up to the top of my window so I'll see you. All right. No issues with A. Moving to B. Definitions. Comment one was, do we wanna define number of people which constitutes a party or a crowd? Yes, Pam. Our current by-law also talks about parties and gatherings and it is the continuation of the same phraseology that the APD is used to at this point. Okay, thank you. Councillor Ryan. So I have a question if I may. Of course. If I understood Pam correctly, she's not really had a chance to look at this before either or is that not true? I mean, my sense is this should go to CRC, they should go through it and clarify and answer the questions the lawyer has raised. We raised the number here that we certainly are not capable of answering and then it should come back to us and then we can go through this exercise. I don't see the point of us going through it tonight since so many of these comments are things we simply can't determine. It has to be determined by the sponsors and what they wanna do. And I also would like to just point out that actionability is actually defined in our documents as basically related to mass general law, our charter and our by-laws. That's all it's concerned with. So I would suggest that this should go to CRC, they should have a chance to go through it and make the changes they wanna make in response to the lawyers and then it should come back to us. Athena, would George have to make that as an actual motion? I don't know, I don't wanna handle it. Yeah, we're just reviewing it. And I don't see how we can review it without CRC coming back to us with their answers to these questions. And then whatever's left, we can then offer our input. Okay, so I as chair could just send this back to Pam and say, please have CRC review this and send it to us when you're done. Athena, without going through an official vote on that. I mean, unless Pam feels that these questions are all questions that GOL can possibly answer, I just don't think they are. And it sounds like she's had the chance with her committee to review the lawyer's comments. I know the committee has not had a chance. Okay, then I don't see the point of us proceeding. Okay. Athena, is there any reason why I can't, oh, sorry, I'm sorry, Pam. I would say, I would, I think I would prefer to have a motion saying, you know, this material just came back from KP law and we're not ready to review it until CRC has worked through the wording and adjusted wording to the approval, if you will, of the attorney. So in that way, it's kind of a formal passback rather than just showing up at our desk. So it would be a motion to request CRC review of the legal edits prior to GOL consideration. Athena, does that work? If that's what you wanna do, I mean, GOL normally does this legal review. So I'm a little confused, but it's up to you if you wanna send it back to CRC then, then make a motion. Councilor Ryan, you've had a lot of... If we do this legal review, then let's go do it. I mean, I haven't been on this committee in two years. I don't remember having to do this kind of thing, but if GOL does this kind of legal review, I just don't see how we can answer some of these questions. My recollection is that GOL is typically the committee that requests a legal review. And so we get something, we ask for a legal review where the legal team sends it back to us to take their thoughts. I don't know that GOL has had legal review that's to this extent before. I think that that's what's throwing us off, right? Is that there's a lot in here from the legal team. And as we go through it, there may be things that we feel go... That the answers to the questions would be beyond clarity, consistency and actionability. I think that if that's the point that councilors feel we are at, it would make sense to send it back to CRC if you feel that answering the questions posed by the legal team would be stepping out of our bounds, then we should reasonably send this back to CRC. If the answers to these questions are matters of clarity, consistency and actionability, we should handle it. I look at this and I do see some that might be beyond it and I see some that we could absolutely handle. So I can go either way. What I don't wanna have happen is us to go through and respond to something and then it go to the council and have CRC say, why did you answer this? We had a totally different idea. That's the only thing I don't wanna have happen. Councillor Ate. This is a question for Councillor Rini. Is there a... I mean, time sensitivity to this particular... What we have before us, because if there isn't, then I would join Councillor Ryan in sending it back to you to CRC so we could have a look at it. Pam. This is not time sensitive. The rental registration is more time sensitive because it asks for consideration in the town budget. This does not. This is already being implemented by our building commissioner and or police department. So it would be just sort of an update of what they're currently doing and broadening it a little bit. So I'm sure to answer no, it doesn't really affect the timing of it or we're not affected by the timing of it, excuse me. Thank you. Athena. I can help frame a motion if that's what you're interested in. The council's process for the past, I'd say a couple of years has been to send bylaws to committee for development, especially CRC for the rental registration bylaw. They worked for a long time on that. And then once CRC had finished their work on it, went to GOL, GOL did this kind of legal review with input from the town attorney and then it came back to the council, ultimately went back to CRC for further work and now it's coming back to the council, but that's the process, the practice that we've had for quite some time is for a bylaw to go to a committee and then the last pass is at GOL for that legal review and the KP law part usually comes at this point. So I don't see this as a very different practice from in the past, but if you'd like to request CRC have input before GOL takes action on it, then I would suggest a motion to request CRC review the feedback from the town attorney and then report back to GOL. Councilor Ryan, would you like to make that motion? No, maybe what we need to do is follow Athena's guidance because she's had experience with this committee for the last two years. And, but I would then simply as a courtesy ask that we put this on our next agenda at the top and so we can work our way through it systematically and carefully and follow the process that has been followed before. I do feel there are a number of things here. I'm not quite sure what I would say tonight about these things. I really haven't had a chance given other things that we've been doing and working on to look at this in the detail it requires. So rather than try and wing it, I don't know, maybe others feel differently but I would like to have a chance to look at this in greater care with greater detail and then we will do what Athena has said we've done in the past. And at that point, if we feel there are things that we have to send to CRC then we will. So maybe we should hold off on a motion and I would just ask that we postpone this to a future to our next meeting and put it at the top of the agenda. I guess that's what I would ask. Okay. Pat. I can see putting it on the next agenda but that makes no sense not to have CRC look at it and they meet next week, I believe. No. Not until the 30th. Okay. But it does seem, if we're gonna look at it and then send it back to them anyway, why not give it to them first and have it come back to us so that we can just go through it? Because we're just look at the amount of time we've taken just now, just to figure this out. And so what we're saying is we're gonna move it, we'll do what we can, then we'll send it to them. So why not just send it to them and then have it come back? Okay. I'm gonna need someone to either make a motion or start making some edits. That's where I'm at now because we are at 830. So if someone would like to make a motion to send this to CRC, let's do it. If someone's ready to dive in, let's do that. Councilor Ryan. There's still, there is a third option. We just just to put this off to the next meeting. Absolutely. We can also do that. I will not be at the next meeting. Councilor Ate, are you comfortable leading this discussion at the next meeting? Yes, I am. It's the help of everyone, especially Athena. Okay. So I would like to thank Pam very much for coming to this meeting and I apologize that we're not digging in deeper. I think if you're able to join us for the next one, you're welcome to, but I think you've given us the overview so I don't know if you need to. But if you wanna observe, you're welcome to observe those deliberations. In the meantime, is there a reason why Pam can't share this with CRC? I already have. Oh, great. It's a public, it's in our folder. So there's no reason why not. Okay. I sent it to those who hadn't received it today for today. But I was going to ask, when is your next GOL meeting? Our next GOL meeting is the 18th or the 19th. It's the not next Thursday, but the day after the 18th at 7.30. Okay. All right. With that, we are going to, I don't know that we need to formally postpone it because we did kind of talk about it a little bit, but we will continue this at our next meeting. Yes, Pam. I just wanna say thank you, and I'm gonna sign off. I am not going to be able to make it to a meeting on the 18th, but if you would like some representation, we have Counselor Ete and Pat DiAngeloz. Oh my gosh. So they should be able to answer that if you would like to have someone else like Jennifer or Mandy show up. I'm sure either of them would be willing if they are available. So thank you very, very much. I appreciate that. Thank you. Okay. Alrighty. We're gonna bump back up to non-voting finance committee member appointment. Yep. Did you just say yep? Nope. On that, George? Non-voting finance committee member. This one has not received any new CAFs to my... Yeah, no, that's what I said. Sorry, I think I froze for a minute. Okay, so we are on the finance committee. I'm just double checking. I don't believe we have received any new CAFs for this committee. Is there anyone who would like to make a motion? Otherwise we will move on. Okay. 2024 Charter Review Committee appointment recommendations to the town council. Yeah, Pat, you're muted, but yeah. I'm sorry, I didn't move quickly. There was a CAF that came in yesterday or today that didn't list what they were applying for. And it just said something like all committees. I can, so I don't know whether we would include that in this pool or not. Let me check on that. Yeah, I think I missed that. Thank you. Okay, well, we can come back to it, but let's move on to the other Oh, Athena, did you unmute to check on it already? I'm checking out. Okay, thank you. Please go ahead, don't wait. You're good, I was pulling up my document. All right, so. I have been tracking. The number of CAFs that we've received for the Charter Review Committee, and I'm just wanting to double check my numbers because I know George also the tracks. As well, I am seeing that we have 16, 17. No, no, no, no, no. I have 19, actually. 19? Oh, I missed one. Yep, sorry. Well, that's 18. Well, I have 19. Did you take away the person who withdrew? I don't know who the person was who withdrew. And so maybe that's the difference, but and how do we find this out? And I mean, it would be helpful if we had a folder on SharePoint that had all the CAFs in it and we could go and find them. As I reached out to Athena, I reached out to you. Somehow I lost, I don't know how, four or five CAFs. I've searched diligently through my council email and they've just disappeared. Now I'm sure I must have done something, but I can find all the others, but there are one, two, three, four, five CAFs that have just gone. And it would be really helpful if we just put them all, I mean, I should have done this myself. I should have just put them into a file and then I would have them, but I left them on our mail account and usually you can find them very easily by typing in a search term and all of them turn up, but not those five. So you have 18, I have 19. Does anyone actually know how many we have? I'm at 18. 18, okay, good. Athena, are you, but that includes the one that I think was a withdrawal. I mean, sorry, it does not include. Athena, are you able to pull a complete response list versus searching through emails? I can do that. Pat had asked a question about somebody who submitted a CAF that was, that didn't indicate what committee, I'm not seeing that. I'm seeing charter review committee, planning board charter review committee, finance committee. That's what I saw. So I don't see one where someone didn't indicate. I can pull down a list. It would be my mistake, but I thought, I remember looking at it twice, but I'll see if I can find it later. It's not important. So what other committees, CRC and GOL in the past had done was when those CAFs came in email, they just saved them and put them in a folder and the chair took care of that. I'm sort of trying to manage the website and SharePoint for I think all the council committees at this point, plus BCG and JCPC. So I'm going to ask for your patience. If you don't want to take that on, then I can pull down a list and give you a spreadsheet next time you look. It's just difficult to keep on top of all of those things for all the different committees, but I encourage you to create a folder on your computer. Okay, so individual... Okay, so you're... Okay, sorry, I'm pulling my head together. I will create a folder in the GOL committee file and put PDFs of the CAFs in that folder. And I will do that tomorrow. Thank you. And I'm putting it on my calendar so that I do it tomorrow. In the meantime, Athena, are you able to confirm our number? Is it an easy download or do you have to go through and search the emails just like we do? I can download a list. It would be helpful if you'd be able to confirm just the number for us. Today, I believe we're at... Sounds like we're at 18. Well, I think I had accidentally counted a planning board one when I just went back through. So I think it would be good to double check. I think it's 19. I need to check because there was one other person who withdrew besides the person who withdrew prior to January 20. So I think we have 18. Okay. All right. With that, we have 18, tentatively, community activity forms for the 2024 Charter Review Committee. We will need to make a motion to approve the sufficiency of the applicant pool. Mr. Ryan. I move to declare the pool sufficient. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Councillor Ate. I'm gonna call the vote, Pat. Can we discuss it just briefly? Oh, of course. I'm so sorry. Yeah, I'm sure the public would like to understand and I would like to understand myself actually in my own mind why this has taken as long as it's taken. My feeling was that a committee of this size, I still think it's too large, but it's nine. That's what it is. We should have at least twice as many applicants as people were going to recommend. I'd like to have more. We pointed out at the last council meeting that just because we declare the pool sufficient this evening, if we do, people can still apply. And I hope we may will. My personal feeling is the more the merrier. But I think, I personally believe this, I don't know if any of the other committee members feel that at this point, 18 is a sufficient number. It's not an ideal number. I'd like more, but I think we can move ahead. So that's my thinking. I don't know if others share that, but I just wanted to put that out there so people understand why it's taken as long as it's taken and why tonight I at least would like to declare the pool sufficient. Thank you. Any other discussion? Councilor Atte? I'll try to second what Councilor Ryan said. I don't think it can be emphasized enough that this is an opportunity for members of our community to participate in the political process and being that that is the case, even though we are declaring the, we will be voting to declare the pool sufficient. There's still room for those who are interested in participation to still proceed if they can and increase the numbers because again, the more we have the better it will be to figure out how to end up with those who will be on the committee. Thank you, Councilor Atte. Sorry for turning my camera off. My internet started freezing again. I appreciate that, both of you. And yes, encourage people to please continue to submit CAFs for this committee. And yeah, it's not, this is not the stop point for those coming in. I'm gonna go ahead and call the vote now at this point. We are voting to find this pool sufficient. Councilor Ryan? Aye. Is that D'Angeles? Aye. Councilor Atte? Aye. And I am an aye. Y'all, we did it. Well, we didn't do it. People applying did it, but thank you. So we need to now look at, because we have found the pool sufficient, we can move on to the next step in George's really handy sample timeline that he created many years ago for FINCOM that I'm basing this off of. According to that timeline, we typically wanna give about three weeks for these interviews to happen. We hopefully will not experience a major melt rate. And so we should plan sufficient time. So we're looking at around early May for this. I don't know if it makes sense for us to try to figure this out tonight or if you'd like for me to come back, I can actually send this to Councilor Atte for the next meeting, which I won't be there, but I can send some kind of sample or some recommendations for when deadlines for statements of interest, as well as interview dates might be, if that's something people would find helpful. I guess I'm looking for some advice from the committee on what the best way to move forward is, if you wanna hash it out tonight or if you want me to send ideas. Councilor Ryan? I think it would be helpful if you could, if you had time to simply sit down and make up a calendar and then share it with the committee for us to review. I don't think it makes sense for us to try and do this as a group. I think it's something that you've got a model from previous times, it's hopefully will be helpful. And you've got the calendar in front of you. And I would just take a few minutes and put together what you think of as a reasonable calendar and then put that in SharePoint or share it with the committee for the next meeting for us to review and discuss. I think that, I think the other issues that we do need to discuss, if not tonight, very soon is do we want, what time do we wanna do this? How much time can we give to it? There's some just practical questions, but I think a calendar is something that would be very helpful if you could just produce it and then we could look at it and if we had any changes we could recommend them would. Okay, thank you, that's really helpful. Let's figure out that first part that you talked about today about how much time because that's going to inform the calendar that I put together. So if we assume that we are going to be interviewing 18 people we have our interview questions and I need to pull them up to make sure I've got how many we are looking for here. All right. Actually, I have a very particular question for everybody. Do we wanna do all of them in one night? I mean, maybe you had experience with this and you were able to get through, I mean, we could have 2025 by the time we're done are we gonna do 20 or 25 people all in one evening? And the answer may be yes, but I think we need to think that through. Maybe some of you've had experience with that large pool with and also we have to ask how many questions. So if we are doing a large number of people we might wanna try and cut our questions down to a fewer number. But first of all, do we wanna do everybody in one sitting and do we wanna do it at night? I think night probably is the only time we can do it, but there's that question and how many? Anyone have an answer for Councillor Ryan? I mean, given experience, others have had, like Pat, yourself and obviously Freck and I haven't had recent experience at all. I have not ever dealt with that large number. That's a number, yeah, I'm sorry. Not this much. Yeah, so do it over two nights, do it all at once. That's the first question. It seems like doing it all at once would be kind of ridiculous. I think that we would just end up being tired and overwhelmed. So I think that it should be two nights. The question if we do it in two nights is are we unfairly advantaging the people on the second night because they will have gotten to watch the first night? Well, remember they all get the same questions and many of them tend to just read their answers. Again, it's not my idea of how to do this, but it's the way we do it. So I don't see that that's a real issue. I don't know. Okay. What do others think? I mean, do they think that that gives an undue advantage? I don't know, I guess I'm agnostic. I don't necessarily think it gives an undue advantage because we share the interview questions in advance and because we are not deliberating at the meeting. I think those, if we were doing either of those things, it would, but because we are not, I don't think that it does. Another thing, yeah, I'm sorry. I was just confirming that we voted the interview questions for finance, but we did not vote them for the charter committee, according to my data. So we can edit those. Can I ask a question about the process? Again, my understanding is that we ask, we have 20 people, say we have 25 people in front of us and we decide to do it in one night. First question, all 25 people answer that question. Second question, all 25 people answer that question. That is the way we're gonna do it, right? That was the way that we did it when we, so the closest experience that I have with this is when we had the school committee appointment. And so that was, I think, what was it? Like 10 people, Pat, maybe? I think so, yeah. Yeah, so that was how we did it, was every single person answered every single question and we switched up the order of who answered the question. And I think that that would be smart to do is not just go down the line every single time. I think that personally, we should split into two nights, nine people per night, it's a long meeting, but I think that that's fine. And yeah. Can I offer an alternative? And it's been a while since I thought about this, but what if we did, rather than do the same question with all the people? Since they have the questions in advance, we bring each individual into the room and we ask them the questions and then we go on to the next person and the next person, the next person. Why can't we do that? Why can't we just have a one-on-one? Everybody knows what the questions are. Everyone's had the questions in advance. Why do we make them sit there and listen to 15 other answers? Why not do them the respect of, so you tell them, look, we're doing these interviews Tuesday night between seven and eight or seven and nine and here's the order. And just please be here by such and such a time. And when their time comes up, we bring them into the room, we ask them the questions, then we move on to the next person. Why can't we do it that way? What's wrong with that? Nothing's wrong with it, George. I actually think that's a really compelling idea. And then we can give people time slots based on the number of questions. I mean, yeah, but maybe I missed something, but I just don't, yeah. Yeah, I mean, I don't see anything wrong with it, but I would suggest either way that we have deliberation on a separate evening, then listen to people and then deliberate. I agree. So we divided into two groups and we meet individually, maybe one of them, right. Yeah, almost like a hearing style, the way that that works of like you have your start time. Councillor Ate. Thank you. This is a very fruitful discussion. On Tuesday, we had some interviews as well. There were seven and it was exhausting with just seven. And so I think what we should be looking at is a couple of nights for the interview and the deliberation would not be on either of those nights. So we should be looking at about three separate meetings for this. Yep. Okay, so we're gonna look at three meetings. We're going to need to cut our questions down. I'm just gonna say that right now. We're at one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 questions. So I'm gonna recommend we either cut those down or we give them a minute to answer each one. I do think that ideally in my mind, and this is kind of arbitrary, but ideally in my mind, each interview would be about 15 minutes. Does that seem too short? I think that that feels... Seems too long. I think, you know, 10 minutes, it should be more than enough, right? Anyway, I'm sorry. 15 minutes times, yeah, it's... It's a little over two hours. I mean... One question I have, and I'm sorry, Anna, but I still don't, I haven't seen, or maybe it's not there, but I haven't seen actually our list of questions. I have something that I... Where is it? Maybe I just, it's there and I just didn't find it. It's not in this packet. It would have been in an old packet, I believe. It was in an old packet. Okay, then I do have it somewhere. I apologize. It wasn't in this packet because I wasn't anticipating that we would get into it. Two at a time, sure. Yeah, and so... I thought you were gonna edit it. I thought you were gonna go through it and tie it up a bit, and maybe... I did. Let me put it back in the packet for the next meeting. I just accepted the track changes that we made in the meeting. I didn't do much beyond that. But let me put it in the packet for a future meeting. I got a next meeting's looking a bit more unwieldy than I think was intentional. Anna, would it be useful for us to do it right now? I mean, are people up for that? I mean, just put it on the screen and let's take a whack at it. It is on our agenda, so we can do that, sure. Yeah, it's, I don't know. What do people feel that they want to do? I think it's worth looking at and figuring out what are the essential things we need to know. Not, you know. We have a half an hour left. I would rather spend that half an hour finalizing or at least getting closer on our interview questions than doing the town manager evaluation. It feels more pressing in my mind than that. So I'm gonna prioritize that. If you did your homework for this week, I'm very, very grateful to you. And... I wanna talk about it. George, we can't do everything. I did my teacher, I did my homework. Come on. I'm so proud of you. Good job, Goldstar. I got a Goldstar. Hang on to that. That means you have less homework to do this week. So... I doubt it. Yeah, okay. Yeah, I can give you three more if you want. All right, so, but I'd rather spend the time focusing on this. Let's do the questions here. Gosh, I hope I did what I was supposed to do. I thought I did, but now I'm not sure. Okay. Here is what we've got. If I didn't do what I was supposed to do, then I will apologize profusely and do it for next time. And if my computer starts to lag, Athena, I will share this document with you so far it seems to be cooperating with me. All right, charter review committee interview questions. Let's take a minute to refamiliarize ourselves ourselves. Athena, what I will do is send this to you as a PDF to put in the packet. And I apologize. I should have had it in there anyway. Let's start with this first section, just this first section, please. Councilor Ryan. I think we do want something. I think we do want a question. I mean, if we looked at broad categories, I mean, ideally if we could just have four questions. One, well, oops, I'm gonna scroll down. There's a fifth one. I was trying to make sure folks saw that that was... If we could just compress each one of these to one question. Yeah. I mean, the other thing is to think just practically, if you want to try to keep this to a reasonable length of time per person. And you want to give people a chance to answer. You can't have more than five or six questions, right? How many did CRC have for your candidates? I don't remember. I'm pausing for a second. I just want to pull up the... And I don't want to do it on that thing because I didn't put it in the packet. Councilor, I think we'll probably know. Yeah. Councilor Ryan. Or Councilor, did you have an answer to that? So they were eight questions of substance and two questions. Oh, that's right. Were flimsy. Yeah, kind of yes or no. Yes or no. That's 10 questions. That's, yeah. Two, I just... Well, maybe others think that's great. But I mean, imagine two hours into this and you're working your way through question number seven. I do think that we don't want to head it down to the forgetting what we know. Let's see if we can edit each category down and then see how many we have. Because if right now, if we have two in each category, we can still look at it again, but not to start it all doesn't make any sense. Sorry, I just had to share this with Athena because my computer started glitching. It's like figuring out what is the most important piece of this or combined piece of this question. Okay. So I would opt for B in under charter. That would be the one that I would think would be the most important. Yeah, let's see. I thought, may I just speak or like... Go ahead, Pat. If it starts, it counts the Ryan. I get to decide that. Pat, go ahead and speak, but if it starts to get unwieldy, I'm gonna enforce hands. Yeah, it's just, I can't see. Yeah, anyway, it seems to me what's your experience or what's your thoughts about the charter or their particular areas you see as strengths or weaknesses? The role of the charter committee, we're gonna be saying that to them over and over again. You can't change this, you can't change. It's like, so do we really need a question that asks them that they know what's already been in the documents? I agree, Pat. I would prefer question A because I feel that regardless of their understanding of the role, their understanding of the role of the charter committee does not change the role of the charter committee. So whether or not they did their homework to know what that role is, they are still bound by that role. And so for me, I see priority being where what's your experience been because that's gonna get more at our selection guidance. Councilor Ryan. I think B is we're trying to get, we're trying to get at what they think and know. So it's not so much about the charter review. We, you know, we wanna understand, we wanna get a sense of what, have they done any? I just wanna have hear what they think about what they think the role of the charter review committee is. Just tell me. And the fact that they've got it completely wrong or they completely misunderstand it is important information. A bothers me because it's kind of like, already we're getting into like, tell us what you wanna change. Tell us what you wanna keep. And it's like, why not go through the process before you decide it's like in a jury, right? And now some juries, I guess you come in and immediately everybody takes a vote, guilty or innocent. I think the good juries start with just, let's look at the evidence. Let's find out what the, right? So I don't like A, but maybe I'm the only one. I'm really not interested in their views at this point. I wanna find out, do they know anything about the charter review committee? Just very simple. Tell me what you're understanding the role the charter review committee is. Councilor Rand, can I ask why you're, you are emphasizing their understanding of the committee versus the charter itself? Because I don't think they really have read the charter carefully, most of them. And I don't think that's a bad thing. I think that's a sign of probably a reasonable human being. And, but they will be reading it and they will be guided through it very carefully by Athena and others. So I'm not worried about that. What I wanna do is get a sense of where they're coming from about the committee. And we hear from councilor Ette. We can, but I'm gonna raise my hand first and if councilor Ette has something to add, I'm sure he will also raise his hand. I think the, my thought, George, is I have a really similar inclination to you in terms of what I want to know. But my concern or my confidence in what they will learn is actually in the other direction. Oh my gosh. Sorry, I'm gonna stop sharing for a second because my computer is giving me the spinning wheel of death. So my confidence is that they will be shepherded through this process of what the committee can and can't do. And I would rather know, they don't have to have read the whole charter and maybe getting rid of that second part that says, you know, are there particular areas you see as strengths and weaknesses or missing elements? That's fine. And just asking what their experience with the charter has been is enough. But for me, I wanna know more about how they've, so I'm bringing this back to our selection guidance, right? We want people with a variety of different experiences in terms of how they've experienced the charter and so for me, that's more telling than have you read the committee charge and do you understand it? Because even if they don't understand it, they can't go beyond it. So I think that's where I get stuck in preferring question A. Athena, are you able to pull this up by any chance? I shared it with you in your email. I didn't, I don't have it in here, I'm checking now. I just did it. Sorry, all my internet is uncooperative. Councillor Ate, Pat, any thoughts about this? Strong feelings? Right, the council, yeah. Councillor Ate? I'm stumped because I do agree that A and B are stronger questions. C is a question we could ask if we had as much time as we needed, but in the absence of time, it boils, I think, to A and B and they are strong or good reasons why we could have either. Okay, oh, sorry. Let me pick your dates on that for a bit. Anna, your email hasn't come up when I see it. I can pull it up. Sorry. And I prefer A. Okay, here's one for B. So yeah, but I don't see the document. I'm gonna pull it up, just give me a second. What I'm gonna say for right now is we started with the most important, arguably the most important question bank. So I think what I would like to suggest is that we tentatively delete the question of how do you see the charter impacting different populations? Leave the first two and come back to those if we need to in the end, but right now let's just leave the first two and move on to the other sections. Athena, I'm gonna try sending you a link instead and see if that works. Sorry, so apologies, okay. The next section is prior experiences. Let me try sharing again and turning my video off to see if that helps. So my first thought here as I read this is I think questions A and B could be combined just to say what experiences or skills do you bring that might be helpful to the group? Have you ever held elective office, had experience in town government, served on any town boards and committees? Or I think these can all be squished, right? Like this first question is getting at these other things. So could we just keep the first question and make sure that we share the selection guidance that emphasizes engagement in town government, engagement as volunteers, et cetera. Hi, so I'm sorry, Anna, if I may. What you'd like to do is connect D with B, is that right? I would either like to keep A or D. I think that they're pretty much the same question phrased different ways. I think that B and C are asking about specific experiences that we might find helpful, but they could bring up by answering either A or D. And I think we can- I think, excuse me, I'm sorry, Pat. Yeah, I think we should go with D. It is the same as A only, it's stated in a better way. Do you think that we could add experiences and or skills? No, because they're in there. No, it's not. It's just to bring it to this. Right. I don't think you need those, but I wouldn't, I don't object if they're there. Okay, this is the time to change now. All right. I'm gonna, okay. I don't even wanna touch this one. I wanna touch it. All right, you go. I would like to get rid of it all. The question about students in college towns and what you like, that shouldn't even be in there. How do you stay informed enough to date about town affairs? That might be interesting, I don't, you know. But I think there is- Good, let's take A out and leave B. Yeah. Okay. Work style charter, oh, you can read, sorry. Yep. We've got, these are the same thing. This is the same thing. I think we can pick one of A, B or C. I like A. Yeah, I like A too, Rebecca. Rebecca, any thoughts? Councilor Ortega, excuse me. So this question, especially, I think something like A was asked on Tuesday. And only one out of the seven gave an answer that was more than roughly. More than what? I'm sorry. Everybody has worked in groups, but only one person spoke specifically about an instance within a group of something that was done. Would you think B might be better then? So experience with a group, working with a group, public or private? We're collaborating with a group. Maybe C, I don't know. I think B, or maybe, but perhaps the difference is what did you find challenging? So it isn't enough to say, I work well with groups. What do you find challenging about working with a group? So maybe, yeah. What about C, which highlights controversy, conflict and trying to resolve it, collaboration? Oh, everybody's got a good story. I like what, fuck it. Councilor Ortega is saying better. For which one again? A. A? The question of what did you like and what did you find challenging? Councilor Ortega, am I understanding you correctly that those were the compelling parts of A that you, yeah. So the question isn't just tell us about an experience you had with the group, but what worked well and what was challenging. So you like A, that's what, okay. I missed that one. I think that's where we're circling, is to keep A, get rid of B, get rid of C. So then we are... Definitely D. I really like D and I'd like... I really hate D. You hate it? Yes. Okay, tell me why. I'm shut up. Let me shut up. I'm sorry. No, no, no, no. Why do you like D? I like D because I think that it allows us to look for... When we look at our selection guidance, we wanted to make sure we had a broad variety of perspectives. One of the key elements in this charter committee was the ability to do community outreach. And so for me, this is important. And I think that it covers E. Yes, okay. So I think we could get rid of E, but keep D. Yeah, get rid of E because people always have a no pun intended answer on that one anyway. So it's not a valuable question. Good, good. I don't think we need this. No, we don't. I think the committee... Oh, I'm sorry. Councilor Ate, your hand was up. Oh, it was just to agree with eliminating E. So the question asked was on Tuesday, what is your approach to public inputs? Someone said, every case is different. Someone else said, listen to everybody, consider all viewpoints. Another person that is important to get input from everyone. So... Helpful, okay. There's not much that can be gained with that question. Yeah. That's really helpful feedback. Thank you. Okay, so I think that we should, under the miscellaneous category, get rid of A because the committee will determine their own times to meet. We are not responsible for that. B is fine. I like B, I think ending with B is important. All right, so let's count. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. I don't know, seven is... Hear me out that it's still longer than what George wants, but if we give three minutes per question... That's 20 minutes per person. I think you only want to give a minute or two. Oh gosh, okay. Two minutes. Two minutes. And one minute is way too short. No, one is too short. Two minutes is fine. Three minutes is brutal, but okay. Well, it's like I'm thinking about public comment. It goes, sometimes when somebody has three minutes, they go on and on and on. Know that they have two minutes. Thank you very much. What is the most important thing about what I want to say? We still might be able to cut seven down. I don't know whether you can see it or not. Athena has her hand raised. I apologize, my computer froze and I missed the last 30 seconds. Athena, your hand is up. I was just gonna mention that the council did the school committee interviews and did a minute per question. That was pretty effective. One minute really smoothly, I thought. All right, all right. We did one minute really, wow. Yeah. Okay, then I can be convinced of two. How about 90 seconds? All right, all right. Let's not get silly here. I think 90 seconds is a bit tough to hold to. Two minutes on seven questions would be basically 15 minutes. And we have to say hello and goodbye so that becomes up to 20 minutes per person. Okay, I would rather get rid of a question than drop this to a minute. Really? That's me, I'm not the whole committee. I'm saying that because I think what we're asking, I mean, some of these questions are multiple questions in one, right? What's your experience with the charter? Are there areas you see as strengths, weaknesses or missing elements? And to answer that in one minute is really tough. And while I think that it did move through the school committee interviews went fast, I don't know that I think one minute's really hard. I'm really, one minute's really tough. Good. I don't know, I could be convinced. Councillor Ate. I think we could eliminate the last question with Miscellaneous, which is tell us some other thing about yourself that makes you a strong candidate. But within the questions, we already have opportunities to speak to some strengths and weaknesses that we need to deal with. So what are you, sorry, could you repeat what you're pitching again? I think I missed that. Just delete the last question. The last one? I really, I would advocate for the last one because I think in case there's something that we didn't ask that they really want to make sure we know. I think that's kind of that catch-all question. I don't know that everyone will take advantage of it. And we could change it to, is there anything else you would like us to know instead of what else would you like us to know? But I think that if there's something that people didn't have the opportunity to say that they think it's very important that we know, that's where I want to give them that opportunity. My pitch for getting rid of a question would be how do you stay informed and up-to-date on town affairs? I could get rid of that one too. Councillor Ryan. I would really like to have some sense of how people learn about our town. Okay. I guess if we have to drop one, maybe that's the one they'll have to go. But I don't think there's a right answer. I don't know what the answer would be. I know what my answer would be, but I'd be curious to hear what other people's answers are. And give us a sense to what degree they are engaged. I mean, that was kind of the idea behind volunteering and service onboarding. Are you engaged in our town? And just tell us a little bit about that, but this is one way to do it. But didn't we just ask that with what experience? I'm not changing, I think we did that, but I'd like to keep this if we could. Okay, all right, I hear you. I have a question for CRC members and then Councillor Arte, I want to hear your comment, which is how long did you give folks again to respond to questions? Do you remember? I don't know if we had a time set. Oh, lucky ducks. Okay, Councillor Arte, what was your comment? Yeah, so that's true, we did leave that open. But to go back, this question that I would like to see removed was question eight for us. And one of the answers that we had was someone saying that they have a passion for zoning issues in town. Of course, this is an interview for the ZBA. My hope would be that you have a passion for zoning. Someone else mentioned having two years ZBA experience, which was in a statement. Another person, four years, someone mentioned being committed to serving the community. Another person has nine years and actually there was only one person who gave an answer that you could say was startling. And the person mentioned that they were a strong supporter of in-person meetings rather than just meetings on Zoom. And so there wasn't anything that was added in answering this question. Okay, I have a thought. I hear what you're saying. When we did the school committee interviews, we gave folks one minute to give an opening statement and one minute to give a closing statement. That is something that we do not have in this. We could offer a minute to give a closing statement in lieu of that last question. People can reiterate strong points that they've already made or say whatever they want. But we can say you have one minute to make a closing statement if you'd like it. And we give them that ahead of time. Would that be something that people would be comfortable with? Councillor Ryan. I think with school committee, the idea is that you're running for office and you're making a pitch. So your closing statement is kind of your, here's what I stand for and please vote for me. Here I think we're asking them questions to try and get a better understanding of whether we think they would be an excellent candidate for this body. And I kind of like to question the way it stands or just get rid of it. I think as giving people a minute for a closing statement, sounds like you're making an argument or a pitch and actually I resist that. If the rest of the committee would like to make this one minute, I will respect democratic process and get outvoted. Is that, would people want to keep responses to one minute? Councillor Ryan. Yeah, I'm sorry, I shouldn't have raised my hand. I don't know. Yeah, some people with, some people I've experienced will talk forever. Oh, I won't let that happen. And they just, you know, and you just have to say thank you that your time is up. If we have two minutes and we have seven questions, it's essentially a 20 minute exercise per person. It's not the end of the world, but you know, given 20 people, that's 400 minutes, that's what, that's a lot of hours. It's six hours. Yeah, that's three hours per two nights. So if we can find a way, I'm not sure that more time means better answers. Okay, I see that point. And, you know, you as chair, assuming you were, I assume you'd be the one asking the questions. That's what we did. You can also use your judgment and maybe give somebody another 20 seconds if they're on a roll, but I don't know, I don't know. I will be consistent. You'll be. Seven. That's great, that's fair, I agree. All right. If folks would like to make this a one minute response, we can make it a one minute response. If we can get it down to five, then I'd go for two, but I think at the moment we have seven, I think at least. So no less than a month. I see your point, I do see your point. Yeah, I see that point, but I also feel, I'm not ready to say one minute. We don't even know if all 18 people, you know, we keep talking about 20 and 25, all of which is possible, but I have what, I feel like what's more possible is 16 out of the 18 are gonna actually wanna do this when it comes to it. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong. It is 926, I'm gonna say we write, you will have one to two minutes to answer each question. And pause it at that point. And I think we should get rid of the last question. I really would, I will vote against that motion. I would like to keep it in there. I think that it's important because I do think that even though, you know, I hear what you said on that, on what you hear for ZBA, but you also did hear from one person something that was helpful. Well, let's vote on it. Fine, hang on. Do we wanna do that now? I think you were gonna take these questions, shrink them to the number, and then we're gonna look at it next time. I'm about to make us go back to raising hands between the two of you. So I will send you a final copy for the next one. I will not be at that meeting. I would like to voice for the record my strong opposition to getting rid of that last question. And I'm concerned about putting this on the next meeting agenda because I don't want it off there and I'd like to be able to vote on it. So I'm just, I'm naming that now. But I will accept the changes that we talked about today and I will send an updated copy to Athena for the next packet. And if I have to call in to die on that hill, I will call in to die on that hill. Councillor Ryan. Would you like us, we could vote on it, I could make a motion, but it would be just for that particular item. I think it would be two, two. Because I would, I'm with you. I think so too. Yeah, I'm with you. I would ask that we keep it. No, it really going to make me leave my vacation event to fall into this meeting next week. You're killing me. D'Angeles, we're going to have a conversation. All right. We, so it does not sound like people would like to vote on this tonight. We would vote on the entire set of questions tonight. Am I hearing a motion for that? No. Councillor Ate, you unmuted. Um, I think your support is heard. Even by me. Oh, sure. And then. Yeah, and the, the easiest space for that question, and I think it can be kept, but I think we could hold off until the next meeting and until you have paid down the list to something manageable. Okay. What I would like to do, oh man. All right. So I'm going to accept the deletions that we made and send this out for the next packet. Councillor Ryan. At the very bottom, we describe the, at least the document I saw earlier, the process we're going to follow. Yes. Right. Would you be willing to put into it the suggestion that we're going to interview each person serially? We're going to. Okay. So we're going to say, oh yeah, because right now it says all applicants will answer the question after it is asked. So we're going to instead phrase it as all applicants will answer all questions. How do you, how did you phrase it? We're just going to each applicant will be interviewed separately. You'll be given a specific time when you'll be brought into the Zoom meeting. Something like that. Maybe something like each candidate will be asked the same questions during their interview or something. And interviewed serially and you'll be given a specific time. I think that makes sense. I think it sounds like everyone, at least President this evening, agrees. But we'll vote on that, I guess, next time, but. Each candidate will be interviewed separately at a specific time given via Zoom. Yeah. And again, it's important past point they'll be asked the same questions. So everyone will be asked the same questions. And but interviewed something that. Yep, got it. Okay. Okay. We still need to figure out the time issue. One to two minutes is what I have in there now. We can edit that as needed. I think what, here's what I would like you to do. I'd like you to read these questions and I'd like you to pretend you're an applicant, answer them as you want to answer them and time yourself. And if you can give an answer that you as an interviewer would find helpful in one minute, I will, and I will do the same thing. We will be happy with one minute. If it takes you to do it takes you to do, no more than two. Oh, Councillor Ate, sorry, I did call you but then I think my computer froze. Okay. Yeah, I think I'm fine with having one or two because if one is going to privilege those who are swift of speech and which isn't necessarily the same thing as being better prepared, they are those who just can't speak fast and can feel the time it works. So one or two leaves room for those who have fewer or more things to say. And if we are interviewing by block and we have a call of time for each interview then it might be the case that for some of the questions candidates might be more interested in speaking on some questions more than others. And so the total time might be the same rather than just making it discrete in maybe one minute for each question. As someone who can feel any time allotted with any words, I hear what you're saying. It is 9.32 and I'd like to be respectful of time. I think this is one of the first times I've gone over so I apologize for that. We're gonna stop it here tonight. I will accept the changes that we've made. I will keep one to two minutes in there unless people are feeling ready to vote on this with those changes right now. No, we're not ready. Okay. For our next meeting, I'm confirming this verbally to you all. You will have an updated questions list. I'm gonna put the selection guidance back in the file for the next meeting. We will have a CAF's list as a reminder that is not a public document, but that will be, I'm gonna pull those and I'll confirm the list with Athena. You will have done- I went ahead and posted the list. I sent everybody links. Thank you so much. Thank you. You will have the nuisance by law as well to discuss next week. And then if you get to town manager evaluations, you get to town manager evaluations, but I think that you've got a lot on there. I will also send you a draft calendar with some options for interview dates based on this. Graph calendar, yes. Okay. All right. Thank you all so much. I apologize for keeping you over time. Is there anything- No, but you don't need to apologize for that. I do. No, no, no, no, no, it does happen. Yeah, but now you're wasting it. No. All right, enough. I would like to move to adjourn at 9.34 PM. Is there a second? We have to do the thing. Is there a second? Thank you. Second DeAngelis, calling the vote. Pat. Hi. Councillor Ryan. Hi. Councillor Ate. Hi. And I am an I. Thank you all very much. I will not be- Thank you. Thank you, Rana. Councillor Ate, you got this. All right. Thanks y'all.