 So everyone should see a message pop up that this meeting is being recorded. And I'll hand it over to you, Michelle. Awesome. Thank you. Welcome everyone. Nice to see you all. I am calling this meeting to order at 204 p.m. of the African Heritage Reparation Assembly Monday, November 7 pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021. This meeting was conducted via remote means members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so via zoom or by telephone. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted but every effort will be made to ensure the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time via technological means. And I'm going to go ahead and do a sound check. I believe that both Hala and Yvonne will not be able to join us today. Alexis, I'm very happy to see you. I wanted to speak with you about dates because I know you said Mondays are starting to be tough. So we'll do that too. So let's start with you, Ms. Bridges. Right here. Okay, we can hear you. Dr. Rhodes. Oh, and I can hear, I can hear and I assume I can be seen. Very well seen. Dr. Rhodes, you are seen Pamela. I'm here. Hey, excellent. And Alexis. Good to be here. Thank you. Great. And Dr. Schvaz. Present a. Great. And Jennifer, I think just let's, you're good. Okay. Yeah. And Hala, I'm, I didn't read your text in full. So I just told the group, I didn't know if you were joining us. I'm so happy you're here. Yes. A little bit choppy, but I did hear your voice come through. Can you hear us? Yes. Great. All right. So welcome everyone before we move into our agenda items. I wanted. Hey, I wanted to take just a couple minutes for those of us who were able to join the Mojuba event yesterday that was co-hosted by the black assembly of Amherst, Massachusetts and bridge for unity. I first want to just really give a very deep and heartfelt thank you to the folks who sponsored and organize that event. It was extraordinarily powerful and very, very meaningful. So would love to hear from Dr. Shabazz and Hala and Dr. Rhodes about that just a little bit. I see before we do that that Ms. Bridges hands us up. Yes. I was a little disturbed or something. So it disturbed my heart so much that I had to write it down. And I just wanted to read something. And I have to leave because I have a very important eye appointment, but just let me get this out. I don't want to stumble, but it's something that I need to say. As you know, my purpose of joining this committee was to add a descendant voice to the history of my ancestors that have been left out of the committee's initial reports. I feel to have a voice in how our stories are told and shared. And I wanted to make sure future generations know about the everyday blacks at the roots of Amherst history. Where you know I wholeheartedly support events that share the black history of Amherst. It's disheartened to read that the event yesterday that was promoted and supported by this committee claimed that it was, I quote, likely the first public event in Amherst to incorporate an honoring of black ancestors. This is not only not the truth, but it's offensive and it spreads information that the to the community. I feel it causes harm to those have done so before yesterday, who experienced the harm. We are charged to repair, including myself. In the late back decades and recently is June 2021. The Juneteenth Heritage Walk in June 2022 and the hysterical and the ancestral bridges exhibit that closed this past Saturday. All included direct descendants honoring their black ancestors in their burial ground of West Cemetery statements that move. The discovery is such, it just acknowledges to yesterday, erase those that came before. And I was, I'm just very disturbed at it and I just wanted you to know, sorry I have to meet leave the meeting but please take what I said is coming from my heart. Because to read that it was very disturbing. I wish you all a good day. I got to go, and I'll see you at the next meeting. Thank you, Ms. Bridgens. Thank you. You're welcome sharing that from your heart really appreciate it. I think the dog is deciding that he wants to bark with something outside so if we could just take a minute to pause here, I'm going to let my dog go outside and we'll be right back in just a second. All right. So let's just check in here as a committee. I really want to honor Miss Bridges statement and voice. And I don't feel personally comfortable pursuing any conversation about Miss Bridges statement while she is not in the room. So what I would like to ask is that we hold that close to our heart and that if Miss Bridges would like to talk further about it in our next meeting. I would like for Miss Bridges further to be space for that to happen next meeting. In the meantime, if there's anything that any individual member feels like they would like to pursue individually with Miss Bridges with respect to her statement, I would encourage that. So I started off by seeing if there was anybody who would like to speak in particular about the event that occurred yesterday. It does feel a little bit unsettling to talk about it again without Miss Bridges here given the context of her statement. However, if anybody would like to speak to the event, this would be the time to do that now. And I'll leave just a minute to do that. All right. Yeah. Yes, Alexis. I'll just say I regret not being able to be there in person but I want to thank Dr. Shabazz for live streaming because that allowed me to join in so thank you for that I appreciate it. All right, and I think I saw Dr. Shabazz but before we go to you Dr. Shabazz, I see Pamela's hand is raised. I just wanted to ask a clarifying question. Was the event co-sponsored by this group or sponsored by another group and we just lent it support I'm just trying to, I don't I know we don't. I think you're, it's appropriate not to talk about it but I just like a little bit of information. Sure. No, the event was in no way sponsored by the AHRA. Okay. Certain members of us sat on the panel and had a dialogue with Dr. Shabazz during the event. But the event was Dr. Shabazz, why don't you jump in and say who the sponsors of the event were. Absolutely. So the genesis of the event is with an intergroup dialogue organization called Bridge for Unity that has existed here for a number of years and attempts to try to promote intercultural and interracial understanding through intergroup dialogue as well as small as well as cultural exchanges. And the idea was presented of a celebration and honoring of the ancestors African ancestors here in Amherst that would be conducted in a traditional West African, particularly Yoruba ceremony. And folks who are two of our Bridge for Unity members who are long practitioners initiated in this particular West African cosmology, cosmology, spiritual system, are offered to create the ceremonial part of the event. And, and that is what they did and I think the kind of unfortunate thing in the press release and that I think was published in the Indie and perhaps in other places, and in the language of the of it was attributed to a statement from me, but not in quote marks but that but attributed to me was saying that it was the first event of this kind to honor black ancestors. But it should have read or should have been more clear within this West African cultural framework. And by no means is this the first time that ancestors of Amherst I was on the walk sponsored by ancestral bridges. This past Juneteenth I've been in terms of other activities here whether in West Cemetery or elsewhere around honoring our ancestors, African American ancestors so by no means would I wish to make a statement or would make a statement that it's the first time African answers is when I've attended and been a part of events that have done so multiple multiple events that have done so so I do very much apologized and feel that was an unfortunate way that language in which that came out I think the sense of it was more, and we didn't even have to reference that as like a first I think the, the, the sense of what was conveyed meant to be conveyed in the press release and in what was reported was in the within this West African spiritual tradition. That was one of the first times but again even that we didn't necessarily have to say that or emphasize that but certainly not to say the first that anybody has bothered to end to honor the ancestors that that would not. I am a living witness to that knows that that's not the first time anything has been done of that sort so very much apologize for the wording that came out in the from the from the press release on that matter, but overall, I was very excited. Can I just ask you one moment to pause I'm going to come back to you just seeing that Ms bridges rejoined. I just wanted to let Ms bridges know if she can hear us I think she maybe she's traveling. I don't see that her audio is connecting, but I'm just going to say this in the case that Ms bridges can hear us that we agreed Ms bridges that it. I did not feel comfortable pursuing a conversation about this without you here. Everybody was in agreement about that, and that if there were individual conversations that could happen, or if we could continue the conversation when you were back with us next meeting that's what we would pursue. Pamela asked just a very direct question for the notes I think to ask whether this committee sponsored the event or who it was sponsored by. And the answer to that question is that the HRA didn't sponsor the event members of the HRA sat on the panel of the event, but it was co sponsored by bridge for unity in the black assembly of Amherst, Massachusetts. How it came in Ms bridges when Dr Shabazz was talking about the genesis of the event how it came to be who it was meant to recognize and in which cultural framework. So, if you have any questions or of course the video will be available you could hear through that as well. So I just wanted to make that and did that clarify the question for you Pamela. Okay, great. Thank you Dr Shabazz and Ms bridges please if you can speak and would like to speak just go ahead and raise your hand but right now it looks like your audio is having trouble connecting. Okay, Dr Shabazz back to you. So just as far as that goes. I was very appreciative of my efforts of Rose Milligan Saki and Dr Trevor Baptiste for the energy and the very, very deep, careful explanatory way for for folks not very familiar with with West African religious traditions spiritual traditions, very explanatory about every aspect of it the libation to the ancestors the cleansing with the water. The, the whole the goon stick and the, the ways in which that, you know, and in the Yoruba language, the words to recall and to remember all our ancestors, all are from the middle passage who died on the middle passage to to the ancestors who were brought here to Massachusetts in chains enslaved and the years of the practice of slavery in in in Massachusetts in Amherst in particular, that were very explanatory with everything I appreciate both of them they're both wonderful educators and wonderfully educational folks so very much appreciated that that was one part of it the event was three parts one part was that part. The second part was the opportunity for members of the AHRA that could attend to update about where our process is. The third part consisted of an inter of breaking out into a small breakout groups to discuss ideas and feelings about the reparative justice process in Amherst and then to report that that back into the big group and followed finally by that by some delicious food courtesy of the black sheep, the blue blue heron restaurant and hazels. So that that that was the whole the whole enchilada for those who could who attended all of it and seems to have been well received. Thanks Dr. Shabazz it really was a quite a moving and beautiful event, and I will say that the chorus, the choir excuse me was just Hala I just want to say when you were singing with your hand in the air and your fist like up I it was so incredibly moving and touching and I just thank you for for what you brought to that and what the whole choir brought so that was a piece that really moved me. So thank you for that. And Dr. Shabazz, do you see an opportunity to offer in our next meeting, a reporting of some of the feedback that was received in when it came back from the smaller groups. Okay, great. That would be really good. I think for us, if you think it's appropriate feedback for this body to have in terms of our work that would be great. All right. Anything else on that. All right. So, we just, I'm going to give a quick update on two things, and then I'm going to pass. Hopefully everyone received the email I sent today with Dr. Shabazz's position paper. Who will be presenting that to us today. Dr. Rhodes and I have a hard stop today at three o'clock because we have a meeting set with the Donahue Institute so this is update number one. We are going to meet with the Donahue Institute to further the discussion that we've been having around a survey and developing a survey that the HR can use to reach members of the community. We have asked, I have asked our Council President to join us in that conversation, because it's possible that the survey that we will conduct will include surveying around public health as well as community safety. And so we're going to have a discussion with the Donahue Institute today at three o'clock, and we will report back to you at our next meeting on that. The second update that I wanted to offer is, hold on, I do have it. Okay, yes. I wanted to offer an update on the July 5 incident. So a couple weeks ago, I had updated the committee to say that I had made a motion that would evoke this committee or members of this committee to participate in another committee for a reconciliation process. And then my vote did not pass through the Council. It was a very close vote. It lost by one vote. And I recommend that everybody if they haven't already take a look at the video and the discussion because it was a very rich and thoughtful, and I think challenging discussion that the Council had around that so I don't have anything in terms of that that we need to be doing right now as a committee. However, I do want to leave some some space, perhaps for this committee to think about if there's anything that it would like to process around that. It won't be today, but we could certainly if I hear from committee members that processing that in any way would be helpful, or if any action that this committee would like to take. For example, a letter to the Council sponsored by the committee itself, or something of that nature. We could think about that. So are there any questions about either of those updates the survey or the July 5. I'm looking for the questions, just specifically about those updates or like discussion about those updates. Anything anything we I wanted to at least give Dr Shabazz a full. So if we have about five or six minutes so we can keep discussion going right now. Okay, so I guess I just wanted to ask in the event that the second motion doesn't pass. And I'm confused about all these rules I'm going to be honest with you. So, are you able to bring forward the same motion again or like what happens if motion to doesn't pass. That's a great question. So, right now what's happening is. There is a motion on the floor which is known as motion six Lynn brought that motion and that motion got tabled to tonight's meeting. In the meantime, Lynn asked that counselors provide any amendments or new motions. There were amendments that were provided. I provided a new motion. Those can be found in the packet for tonight's town council meeting. However, I am aware that. Lynn will be making a motion which I believe will pass to postpone the discussion in its entirety to next Monday. So that it has a designated time for it. So it's probably going to be a town manager evaluation as well as tax classification hearing and financial indicators. So it's probably going to be an after midnight meeting as it is. And I think that's a good call. I really struggle to see it keep getting postponed but it is good to have its own designated time. So I do see the amendments to the current motion, the new motion that I'm proposing, I'm proposing that motion in addition to whatever else, because my motion is specific to the incident itself. It calls for an apology. It calls for a record of events, and it calls for research legal research into compensatory repair models options. You can take a look at that and feel free to reach out with any questions to me individually and be happy to answer them. Dr. Shbas. Yeah, I'll keep it very short just to say that, you know, the original idea of formulating a working group that would include a representative from, from this body from HRA, along with representatives from the human rights commission, as well as representatives from the community's safety and social justice committee, along with counselors, I thought was a reasonable way to proceed I supported it. And I was especially supportive because I was hearing in discussion and I heard at that last meeting counselor of Gricemer bring up this notion of, you know, based upon discussions and, and our process within HRA that nothing could be done relative to compensation based upon, you know, the findings of KP law and what was what was again what's been generated in our process and I was a little, you know, I thought that that's where we could perhaps shed clarity in that, you know, our process is one thing it's very different from this specific event. The two should not be confused, and that yes, as this process is one that before any kind of direct payments or anything of that sort, as part of the reparative justice plan we will submit. To, you know, we understand it's going to go through this state legislative process it would need to go through this is at least is what the attorneys had recommended, and, and that will take some time, but I wanted, I feel a hra as we get into some of the specifics of items that could come under the reparative justice plan to keep in mind the justice gap to keep in mind the harm area of crime and punishment criminal, the criminal justice system, and that there that we are hearing the need for that perhaps funds could go as one priority area to be able to compensate in in situations where the criminal justice system, or some aspect of it has has operated in a in a racially unfair manner or or discriminatory manner. But I think we're going to need to discuss that one a whole lot more because first of all, I don't think the reparative justice fund would be appropriate in instances that actually are, you know, dealing with immediate contemporary events that might need to be mediated or dealt with in some other way. And, and that we should not be used to say that, you know, you can't mediate and and or address those, hopefully outside of a lawsuit framework. The town can address those unless it's in the AHRA process. So I don't want to get too, too deep into the woods on it but just to say that I did support the idea and I think it is something we ought to I have heard brought up before of whether the reparative justice fund one of the areas we might recommend is how it could deal with instances like this and that's going to be something we we might want to spend some time talking about down the road. Thank you for that Dr Shabazz. And Alexis I realized I didn't answer your question as directly as I'd like to so let me just say this one more piece. Yes, I could certainly bring back that motion. I chose not to because at this time, because one, it didn't get the support the first time around that it needed to pass, and two, because the new motion that I've put forward hopes to deal directly with what the committee would have dealt with so the apology. So a record keeping of what occurred the compensatory pieces. And so, while I really wanted the committee to be put in place to do that work, given that it didn't get the support that it needed. I chose a different strategy for this time. Thanks for asking that. Are there any other questions or comments about this Dr Shabazz your hand is still up. Okay. Anything else, Dr Rhodes, Hala, Pamela, Jennifer, Alexis. All right. Okay, so I'm going to pause before we turn things over to Dr Shabazz to talk about his position paper and his framework that he'll be presenting to us today and do a public comment period. I am calling public comment now. And if you'd like to make a comment, please go ahead and raise your hand. I will call on you and ask that you state your name and your address and you'll have up to three minutes. We normally do not respond, but we will be listening closely and sometimes can respond if there's a direct question. So if you'd like to make a public comment, please go ahead and raise your hand, and we will bring you into the room. All right. Yes, Jennifer would like to make a public comment. No, but can you guys approve the minute so I can get those posted and then give you guys another set of proof. Absolutely. Does everyone feel that they are prepared to approve the 61576 and 725 meeting minutes. All right, great. So I will move to approve the 61576 and 725 2022 meeting minutes. Is there a second. Okay, I think it was Alexis and then Dr. Rhodes. So let's start with you, Hala. Okay, we'll come back. Alexis. Yes. Dr. Rhodes. Hi. Dr. Schwarz. Yes. I am also a yes. Okay. I think we just put Hala as absent from the vote or how would you like to record that, Jennifer? I'm staying up. I'm just, yeah. Okay, I think they pass. I can say hi. Oh, perfect. I'm sorry. I didn't hear you. Awesome. That's great. Okay. Thank you. All right. So just to give some context, Dr. Shabazz, do you plan to share screen? Okay. So for folks who are listening, I just will briefly say that Dr. Shabazz has been working on a framework for us to consider as we move into eligibility criteria and use of funds and all of that stuff that we'll be discussing. And so he is going to present that to us now and that will give us an opportunity then to begin that discussion. So I'm going to turn it over to you, Dr. Shabazz. Dr. Shabazz, are you able to share screen? I won't need to. I thought about trying to do a PowerPoint, but you've had the paper presented to you ahead of time and I'm just going to highlight a few things very quickly, recognizing there is a hard stop for many of us. So with that, let me say that there's great interest and it is very important for the, for AHRA to grapple with the question of who is owed and who should receive reparations and amours. And the model that I am recommending to us for approval is what I think of as an inclusionary model, one that is not based upon restrictiveness, but is one that also recognizes certain critical priorities and targets for who is owed. There are three elements for us as a local locally based reparative justice planning group, and there are three, then the three criterion areas are residency, lineage, and identity. The model, so on the residential standard, the inclusionary model recognizes that the, in terms of who should receive reparations or the benefits of a reparative justice plan should first and foremost prioritize those who live in amours. And so residency in amours is thus a critical priority area, but I don't, but when I speak of an inclusionary model I like for us to recognize that those not living in amours may have a stake as well as what happens here. For example, a 19 year old who is away at college or in the military or in some other form of service that requires them to be outside of amours most of the year or at a point where temporarily their residency is no longer here in amours, they're not voting here, they're not paying taxes here, they are living elsewhere, but that this is not necessarily a permanent, a permanent position or a permanent residency for them, and they do look to come back. In my view then they should not be excluded from the conversation, they should not be excluded from our, in regards to our residential standard, but that for, in terms of our planning, and in terms of who we're listening to, but that again, we do recognize as a priority area, those in relation to the residential standard, those who are living in amours now. Secondly, the lineage standard. The lineage standard has particularly come up almost from the, the, as this conversation has really begun to take off. And what this references is the debate over that when we talk about black people, people of African descent, people of African heritage, and whatnot, that we have to delineate or distinguish amongst those black people, so amongst the black population in the United States, those who have a lineage that goes back in time to over generations, multiple generations and in fact goes back in time to having at least one ancestor who was enslaved in the United States. What would effectively exclude people who have just arrived here in the United States, they could be African, they could be a black, and they could even have achieved citizenship, and they could even be a taxpayer over decades here in amours, but the fact that they were, that they're, they don't have a presence in the United States that extends over multiple generations back to an ancestor enslaved in the United States by the, by some models of definitions of the lineage standard, they would therefore be excluded from who is old, who should receive benefits, and who should even be considered as part of the planning purposes of a reparative justice process. I don't agree with that. I think instead what we need to assert is that those who meet that lineage criterion that standard in terms of having an ancestor who was enslaved in the United States should be a priority area within our reparative justice planning should be a, should be prioritized in certain respects of benefits that, that might be extended through our reparative justice plan, if, if acted upon when acted upon by the town council, but should not mean that those who do not meet that criterion should be completely excluded. So for example someone whose family might have come here from the Caribbean in the late 1800s or come here in the early 1900s and have been here over multiple generations in Amherst, but simply for the fact that they don't have an ancestor that was enslaved in the United States. We would say in this inclusionary model, you are embraced. There may be benefits that could be extended through our reparative justice plan that could encompass those who don't have an ancestor that was enslaved in the United States. But again, we, this model would recognize that that group with that multi-generational experience in the United States with an ancestor enslaved in the United States is a priority area and is one that our planning process should recognize, particularly in that part of our rationale is that we are attempting to pave the way for federal reparations in which the lineage standard may well be the framework of federal reparations. Finally, there is the identity standard. And the identity standard is whether one defines themselves, identifies as black, as of African heritage, as an African American. And again, by some advocates for reparations, especially in making the case for reparations at the federal level, they have insisted that there be an identity standard. And one model goes that from the announcement of a reparative justice program. So, for example, we submit our report in June of 2023. It's read, it's digested. Let's say in the July or in the August council meeting, aspects of that plan or that plan is approved and adopted, and a reparative justice program begins to be implemented. The view of one model is that persons who would apply for or who might receive benefits must prove that they had identified as black for at least 12 years before the start of the reparative justice program. And if we said August of 2023 we announce a program, then they would have to prove going back to at least, let us say 2020, I mean 2010 that they have some type of documented proof of having identified as black or been identified as black. And this is returned from 2010. It could be a driver's license from somewhere it could be some form of official government document that identifies them as as black or that African American and that they, they, they were so identified and they profess that as their identity. And really answers is a question one counselor raised sometime back, what about mixed race people would mixed race people be eligible, and the answer then is resoundingly. Yes, as long as that mixed race person, in addition to identifying as miss mixed race, also identified as black and that doesn't go without saying. It would be some who have simply listed themselves and simply identify themselves as mixed race. And that doesn't tell you if they identify as black. So one would have to have documentation under under within this identity standard that you may have identified as another race, you may have identified as mixed race, but that you have also documentation of identifying as black as of African descent. So for us in this inclusionary model, we recognize that identity standard. We acknowledge it as one that may be appropriate at the federal level, and one that we should bear in mind with in relation to our, our planning, but that we are not strictly but that we can also embrace folks that may not have a proof prior 12 years prior, but at least in my view if they identify at the point of the reparations program, they still may be considered as eligible, but so that is in some the discussion that I raise on the three identity standards, and this inclusionary model is one that acknowledges some of the frameworks that are being discussed that have been put forward at the federal level, and but acknowledges them as simply areas that we could recognize and build some of our planning around, but that not necessarily relying completely on that for restrictive purposes, at least in our planning planning area. So it gives why this latitude for encompassing people as we move into defining benefits and defining different ways in which the the the funds and the programs that we ultimately endorse and put within our plan. It gives why this latitude for for projects, ideas, proposals to be incorporated for people, both with both in those priority areas, as well as maybe not within those priority areas. I open for questions. Dr. Shabazz, I saw Alexis hand and then Dr. Rhodes. So this came in today, at least as I saw it today. There's a lot to unpack here. And there's a lot of thought that needs to go into it to make it worthy of being able to respond to it, given your efforts, Dr. Shabazz. So I'm definitely not ready to talk about it because I'm really still unpacking it and I printed it out and I started marking through it. And so, you know, in order for me to offer any kind of meaningful feedback, I would have to have a little bit more time. I think that's a really fair point for everybody. I appreciate Dr. Shabazz having gotten it to me and I only got it to you all today. And so was hoping Dr. Shabazz would present it to us it would go into the packet. And then we'll have a week to digest it formulate questions and be able to have a really meaningful discussion about it next week. Alexis. Thank you. Thank you for this work, by the way, Dr. Shabazz. I appreciate you putting all that together. So I have a complicated thing to throw in here because just because my life is complicated. And so why not speak from my experience right so being that I have. And I guess I'm wondering, you know, is, you know, if, if, if A and B aren't necessarily verifiable. And I know that that puts us, you know, throws a wrench in it because the genealogy aspect, you could be. And I guess I'm wondering, and I know that like quantifying things have been extremely problematic in the past. I'm wondering, I guess, if, if that applies to anything because and here's my things right so I wasn't allowed, at least on my birth certificate to say that I wasn't white, because my grandma and my mom decided that that was a politically smart idea. That I didn't wasn't born out of a black woman right, but like politically speaking. That was a decision made outside of me. And that's not to say that in census reports and stuff like that and like you know in the SATs and, and the MCAS and whatever else that we had to say where we had to check the boxes about what we were. And that was always African American and white. But I guess like for me that data is very sometimes it's this sometimes it's this and it was based off of the information that I was receiving from my black family members that's the one piece right. The second piece is that. I'm going to be fast about this, but the second piece is that I was able to trace back my genealogy only so far, because of course right being when you have enslaved ancestry, not everything gets recorded and not everything lasts so I was able to trace back my genealogy to Robert E. Lee on my black side, and his son was Peter Lee, who was labeled, you know in the records as being mulatto, and from there they married black black black black black black black black until my mom messed it up I'm just joking. But you know it was basically like that right and so it that's reaching back to like 18 something I know Robert E. Lee was born in like 1805. So I know for a fact that Peter Lee was not enslaved, but his mother has there's absolutely no records at all to be able to find his mother and I highly doubt that this that this person consensually had a baby with Robert E. Who is obviously not white. So, I guess I'm wondering in the event that you don't have lineage proof through paperwork. And being that I have literally a black mother I guess I'm wondering like how, how do you prove that, especially when my data is all jumbled up right. Yeah, make a quick response chair. Yes, yes. I just want, first of all, for express appreciation for your sharing for your honesty and respect to this, and to say this is exactly the complexity that I am wrestling with and I'm trying to contend with in this position paper that many of the frameworks that have been written about and been pushed at the federal level and most notably in my reparation seminar, we have been diving into Darity and Mullins book from here to equality. And we've been tearing it up that there are so many holes there's so many areas that this blanket kind of approach that they take don't anticipate. And so I want to highlight, first of all, with respect to the lineage complexity. This is where I believe are in our final plan, we ought to endorse, we ought to consider endorsing a motion to state government and federal government to as one step of reparations to fund the availability of a DNA and genealogical research for people of African descent to avail themselves of who want to, because to try and have to do this on your own, and then consider about the wealth gap. If you're poor, where are you going to get the resources to hire a genealogist, or to hire, you know, to pay these 200 300 whatever dollar kits, DNA kits and then get the interpretation from it to then be able to go improve you deserve reparations. Who's, who's got those thousands of dollars available, because let me tell you professional genealogists are not, are not cheap. Okay, so who's going, who's able to do that. All right, so that is a is a question I don't see in from here to equality I don't see from advocates that that push this lineage standard as less like you know, fixed, you know, and we've even gotten to to our assembly, you know, saying we're treasonous because we don't hold to to a strict lineage standard. Well, how do you, how are we supposed to prove this, you're just going to show up there for your, you expect the federal government to go to go do all of that. That's not how benefits work. The benefits work from the federal in the case of the Japanese, you had the show, you had to come and present the evidence that you had that you were interned or that you had a parent or grandparent who was intern to get your $20,000. Now what the support group the advocacy group for Japanese reparations did is is they, you know, got support together to go and do a lot of that documentation and to get from the government because the government kept records and all the people they locked up in the internment camps. So they did a lot of that legwork to to get the evidence to create the role of who got the $20,000 checks. Okay, but how do you do this for potentially 36 million African Americans are more actually more that that could be eligible under the under the federal plan. So somebody's got to take responsibility to, I think the federal government ought to take responsibility to help provide the genealogical research and the DNA research, the finding your roots, if you will, for African Americans, of which this is one of the direct terms that broke us from having any kind of ability to trace our lineage like that. So that's one area with respect to the lineage on the identity one. This is another important complexity that again by my recognizing the, the issue of that some have raised to show documentation at more than a decade before the start of the reparations program that just saying that can be easy for the policymaker, or for the, you know, the economists to to to come up with that, but the implications on the ground for masses of people can also be be challenging in ways you have to really think about, you know, faced with a white supremacist structurally racist system, a white parent and a black parent. In my mind, completely reasonable that they might opt to say in a choice of what bubble to fill out, they might say w and not say black and not or not say other or not say multiple. Okay, and it is their choice to do so. But then what does that mean down the line with respect to a reparative justice process in which that infant had no choice at the point that those those those boxes were that that W box was checked. What does that say for them. Are they thus, you know, they're, they're, they're their entitlement to, to what is old negated because of the decisions being made between one or both parents to mark the W box. And then they could perhaps prove the lineage standard, you know, and show that they had an ancestor who was enslaved through their black side, they could still then be did be disqualified on the basis of the identity standard. So I think, again, what you've just presented highlights some of the some of the complexities that I think as we grapple with this on the local level. My recommendation is to have this inclusionary model that acknowledges the, the priority areas or the targets or the, the standards that have been raised at the for the federal reparative justice process, but doesn't, but doesn't limit our attention strictly to those to those more restrictive standards that have been advocated. Thank you Dr Shabazz and we will certainly have much more conversation around this that was really rich and very appreciative to you Alexis for sharing that personal piece to give us this ability to discuss these nuances and the complexities. Dr Rhodes, if you want to jump off while I call one more public comment to get on with Kerry, feel free to do that. That didn't take long. I'm just going to call one more public comment to see if there is anybody in the audience who would like to make a public comment. You are able to just go ahead and raise your hand please and we will bring you into the room you have up to three minutes to make a public comment, and we will be listening very carefully to you. Okay, not seeing any just want to thank the attendees who joined us today really, really appreciate you being here and please continue to join us. I can't really see what you're showing but okay so are there any other comments or questions by counselors or Pamela and Jennifer. And Alexis I'll touch base with you about scheduling and may everyone have a beautiful week and we'll see each other next week again and I'm going to adjourn at 302pm. Thank you. I love that. Bye. Jennifer if you can keep it open for a second just for me to reach out to Pamela and Michelle you can, you can go this is. I just been wanting to say to you Pamela been very interested.