 So I made some revisions based on, so what I realized, which I knew was that most of this I filled out based on discussions we had, but the section that we talked about last time was the process. Some of that is what we had done. Some of it was stuff I invented. And so that was sort of the discussion last time of, well, what about this? What about this? And so I edited it to sort of reflect the discussion we had and sort of the things that we might do or have done. So that's the only thing that's changed between this version and the one that we looked at last week, other than a couple small, I don't know. I guess this is actually a question that goes beyond the FAQ. Is this process that is described here how we want to do things? I mean, I think that's actually, it's not a question about the FAQ. Is this an accurate representation of how we would like to handle things? But also I'm not feeling that great about that. Just like clarity? So though I will say those three I did not write, those came from the guy, those are copy and pasted from the guidelines that we discussed back in February. I'll just take it out. I had a similar sense of just vague unease that it's a bit, you know, I understand the sentiment, but it's probably just to be... And given that some people are nervous about this committee... Trust us. We'll know it. This point of this is to sort of say, okay, we're trying to be transparent. I was just trying to find... So are people comfortable with the process that I articulated? No, that's okay. I just wanted to... Because it's not the process, it's not exactly what we've been doing, but we also have never actually discussed our process of... So if you think about what we just did with ECAC and with the finance committee charge, we did make revisions to it and then we just sent it to the council. I don't know that we sent it back to... I mean as I was the person for ECAC, right? But it never went back to finance to say, here are our revisions, are you okay with that? Which is why I think we had a question from the vice-chair of finance saying, hold on, you changed this. Why? We were able to explain it, but the boy process here. Now of course it might be... We might have a little bit more flexibility when it's a council committee charge, right? We wouldn't want to just take a measure that was written by a citizen and send it to the council without being like, hey, we changed these things. But technically we didn't follow this with finance and the ECAC versions that we just made. But it seems like... So that we don't have to say, okay, we're ready to go. Go look at it and three weeks later it comes back to us for the final vote. So I was happy to see that we can use that so that then it's ready to go to the council. And then the other thing that I added that was different from the first one was the last bullet. Because I realized how I'd written in the first bullet was that we will work with them to make it consistent. But there could theoretically be something that comes to us that's like, this will never work, right? We will never say that if someone came back and they said, we are going to do something that clearly violates some state law, we can't be like, well, okay, we'll help you make this so that we can declare it. I think the old one was that inevitably we will always declare something clear, consistent and actual if they accept our revisions. But there might be some things we find that are unrevisable. So I added that we might just look at something and say, you know what? We're not even going to work on this because it's so clearly not actionable. Is that different than the short one? Yes. The website, the town website so that other people have access. Is there anything on it? I was wondering if there was any documents out there? Well, there's packets available in minutes and all. Oh, here they are. Right. So I'll also go to the top somehow before submitting another one. So I've been trying to, the problem I've had with this entire thing and with it coming to GEOIL is, I'm just not sure if people have ideas of what that would look like. So we could say every council committee, whenever you put forth a policy, you have to issue a report that looks like the one that they did, right? I mean, we could say that when we have wanted to do that for public ways, which we would have had to do, right? And maybe that would have made sense, but then it also, it would have been an additional thing we would have had to do before bringing that to the council. But outside of saying every committee has to submit this type of report, I'm just not sure what such a recommendation would look like. So do people have ideas or should we just? I think it's a useful lens, you know, that impact study that they have suggested for what to do with it. I mean, I think we could say that this is a recommended checklist or any major measure. It would be nice if we could come up with something that sort of mitigates, we have a two-month process bureaucratic review on quite. And most uncomfortable with us, again, sort of saying this is what we want committees to do. We've also kicked it to CRC, right? Well, it gets to the best. Wait a minute. They, we suggested that was an option. Right. But they have ripped out to you and they're going to pause. We're using, because that's our goal. Well, I mean, one of the benefits of the impact is that we would require people to do forward a measure to attach them. And so if you want to have an ordinance, don't find kites on them, comment on some things. You would have, you would look through the checklist and your desire to bring this forward would be diminished. Could we as a committee craft to CRC? So we're seeing this as falling under the broad category of good governance and seeing it as our responsibility or could be our responsibility given this committee's charge to come up with some sort of suggest, set of suggestions or rubric or guideline to further good governance. Is that basically what I'm hearing here? It's we're trying to assist the council in being in this process of good governance and the creating some, mandating or requiring or requesting some sort of impact statement for a certain category of categories of actions we would consider to be, and we would define that, describe the impact statement or whatever, but that would be considered a good governance thing to do. Is that why we're doing this? Because it's ultimately around the idea of good governance. And we're trying to create some kind of rubric or policy that would further that. Is that what people want? And that sounds good to me, but I'm just wondering, is that where you see it coming from or is this more because someone has brought something forward, we feel obligated to somehow do something about it? Man's argument is that this sort of issue can come up in other places besides CRC and it might be useful for us to start the process and start the dialogue and start crafting something. That's going to be a bylaw. It's going to come to us not necessarily for a policy review, but for something else, there should be a policy review. It should probably sort, you know, we should, whenever that comes to the council, be looking at what are the benefits of this full justice mantle on it. And that's even debatable. Right. Yes. But having that statement. I don't see examples feel, I feel, comfortable. I think what they were proposing and the concerns that they brought up were almost 100%. CRC type things, land use type things. And in fact, one of their checklist things is maintaining the small town feel. I don't, I can't pull it up because I don't, I might, but they have something like maintaining the small town feel of theirs. So finger on the scale. But the, I think it's, I think that's really where they're concerned is CRC type stuff. So that's why I think that CRC, a request that CRC look at some sort of an impact statement influenced by what they've started, I think might be a good idea. I actually do think it is a good idea because right, so right now we, you know, we'd expect the finance committee to weigh in, we'd expect the town manager's office to, so I do think it's useful to have, oh, we forgot to ask if there's, I mean, let's take the, the bridge example was not a, it was a measure, but you know, it was reallocating funds. But that would have been an interesting one to have run through that checklist because we all had our own checklist. Right. So it would have been nice to have sort of a universal checklist that we, but then there's nothing to say that you have to meet all of them or any of them. You know, you could still vote aye if it doesn't mean any of them. Yeah, I agree. Are you imagining that it would be required by some entity to produce? I think the applicant, wherever the proponent is. So like in the case of the bridge it would have been the VPW or the really common manager's office. No, it's- So you sort of need- Well, the minimum- Right. And so I think that's why, to me this does make complete sense to me and it almost seems like CRC should be adopting some- CRC is one of your jobs, too, with policies that impact these things, right? Right. And at some point, just as we had to decide, what do we mean by clarity and consistency action, you all are going to have to decide. I understand your point that there's some things that will go to CRC, right? But I'm looking at this and I'm thinking for rank choice voting, right? So maybe social impacts, but probably not environmental impacts, maybe economic. It seems so mitigate, you know, compatibility. I also don't know what to some extent. I don't know how- You don't think that this group, I mean, obviously I'm not looking for work for us to do, but you don't think it would be fruitful for us to just look at this and sort of see what- I mean, for instance, E&F, I mean, if we created something like this, that would go out or it would change. I mean, you don't think it would be fruitful for us to have this discussion. It should be- CRC should take care of it. I mean, they got a lot of- You know, a way from that, you know, some of these- because I expressed to Mandy while we were at public hearing before that was very smart growth, but that was like, to me, if I was a public watching that, I'd go, they just committed some $16 million and no one even had anything to say about it, right? And so I think the good governance part is actually showing the community we have thought these things through and we're not- I think that Monday night's meeting to something- and I heard people say this- was a good example of rushing through an agenda which is everyone wants to get out early, but the feeling of, you're making some big decisions and there doesn't seem to be a lot of debate on that, right? And so I think having something like this paired with that can say, look, no, no, we've actually considered these things beforehand even if you're not seeing- even if the show isn't there. But I just don't necessarily know what this looks like outside of it. Say we decided to change the speed limit. It certainly wouldn't be CRC. It's all in place. It's CRC. Say we wanted to change some of the bylaw related to alcohol regulations or marijuana dispensaries. Is that CRC too? You can put a CRC lens on it. That's terrible. It puts everything on that committee and that committee's going to have to kind of work on which is why we're going to sing into that other discussion we've been continuing for a while. I think that CRC is that- So one thing is I really think we should be strengthening our committees. I think we need to weed and strengthen. Sometimes you have to cut down a committee or other ones to grow stronger. But I think we need to be strengthening the committee. So I think that- and that was one of the reasons that I inherently was not in favor of this because I think there are other committees. So like the CRC might say for the speed. We don't have the information that we need. So I think we need to refer this to these two others. And then we might say but there isn't a committee that deals with- like we don't have an economic development. So maybe that's one of the things that comes out of this. Economic development question is a really big question for anything that we, including speed limit frankly, right? You know any measure that we- maybe that would be a way of addressing this is economic development committee that said that we see it. We can take some of the issues that are identified. Yeah. Yes. Receiving that proposal or the council receiving that proposal and say, hey, well this also is going to impact economic development or this. We're going to send it to those committees for their recommendation. And that's one thing that never happened with Tamiya. Yeah, which never happened. But we don't have to just receive a recommendation from the originating sponsor committee. We can go to, you know, public works or the refuse. It's not existence anymore. But we can go to the ECAC committee. We can go to the zoning subcommittee we work with and use that expertise to do essentially what this impact statement is. And that facilitates a broader time to utilize them. But again, we still have- Yeah, you'd still have to do it. So that, what if we don't agree with the- But you would then be synthesizing the four different committees' review of that single policy. So what I'm hearing now is that having a piece of paper or a document that is really not in the general sense that the expertise is out there, we just need to- Yes, but- But yeah, I need to- I want to hear some pushback here because- Yeah, because to me, there is this intense reliance on experts without looking and without opening it. These and other things and that this is this one. Well, this committee- No, I'm just- It would come- It would go back to the council for vote, which is why I say the council. But yeah, this committee recommending to the council some universal policy that the council may then adopt. Is that what I'm hearing? I need to see it written down. Good luck writing this. Yeah, I'm doing my best, chair. But I don't think it's going to look much like- I mean, I feel very- At some point, someone has to synthesize that information. I imagine- I think GOL can be a- Much, much like percent. Right. It can be just the- We- Did you know what I mean? It doesn't fit in this recycling or this compost or this, so we'll just throw it in there, right? And so, I think to some extent, we can serve as the backup if it doesn't seem like it fits in CRC and it doesn't fit in something else. Because that's sort of how we've been used already. Like the reason we're even talking about this T-Mac proposal, it was sort of a- Yeah, it doesn't seem to fit. We don't want to give it to CRC just to try. I try. And it doesn't make sense anywhere else. So, but generally speaking, I do like that. I also think I would just like to wait a little bit and see what CRC comes up with for how they're going to evaluate things and then maybe return to this discussion. You know, it's a future future. Because we also might be getting a revised proposal from the opposers in a couple of months. Yeah, in a couple of months. So the CRC needs something to evaluate in order to, in other words, we need, we can come up with sort of a theoretical checklist. I mean this has to do with all of our committees basically. We can come up with a theory of what's a good practice, but we need a practice to prove the therapy or to adjust the theory. Right. CRC kind of gets their legs up. Is continued discussion of recommendations related to the GOL committee charge ventured into it, mainly by laws, but potential resolutions. We're hesitant to recommend a new committee to do that, yet we were also hesitant to say GOL should be the one that gets all the leftover stuff that doesn't follow CRC. And they are diametrically opposed opinions in a sense. So I think we need to come to some sort of conclusion so that we can update our own charge and get other changes that we want to make to our charge made, number one. But so that we can put this conversation to rest and make a recommendation be the monitor of questions about, so let's say, we think GOL should have based on stuff, but here's an authority that's missing and maybe GOL shouldn't, maybe we should be adding it to it. Get it into a chart. We've struggled with taking away on continuing this diametrically opposed opinions on what we should do. Can I bring up things that are not that first? I think we've already agreed, someone's looking at the chart right now, I think we've already agreed that we're definitely going to ask to revise the second bullet, this is review by-laws and resolutions, to just say review measures, is that correct? The other part is that first bullet, there has been a lot of debate and so we have said we want to do these things with town committees, the internal, so you could read this as internal rules is one, governance is another, an organization is another, or you could read this as internal rules, internal governance, internal organization, right? To what does the internal apply? And there seems to be disagreement with that so that when we said we want to request committees review their charges, some people said you're only dealing with the town council, this is internal rules and internal governance and we're, we've been trying to interpret, so I think we also have to I think that the bigger conversation is what Manny Joe brought up, but I actually think that in the recent past that first bullet has a council does, or we also focus on the government. What I get really worried about is that we'll have these highly restrictive committee charges, so we don't have the headspace to do necessary work on that council, because it's too big, genders are too packed. So we've developed this committee structure and if we have too much shoe pounding over every time a committee comes up with a good idea then we're going to be completely paralyzed. So I think that in some ways we need to get the, the boat out past the waves and so what we saw is that looking at all the committee structures caused some anxiety as you know, caused some anxiety. So maybe, you know, this isn't the right time. I firmly believe this is the right committee, because what other committee would do it. And I think that every I think at this point, every action that the committee takes one of the committees should be able to handle that. I mean it should be in the purview of one of those committees we should stop forming ad hoc committees of the council. So, and it may be that we simply have to add to the list at this point, but now we know it's like the game. My favorite analogy is the game of operation that we, you know, you set off a buzzer you set off a buzzer and so we know okay, so we know where the the trees, yeah. That's what I'm saying, this first one I feel like he's setting that off. Yeah, I'm trying to get the bone out. So what is the biggest seriously, I mean because I think it depends on who you ask. I think that there's two general fears. I think one is that this committee has the power to alter measures in a substantive way that changes what they do if we don't like it. Right, and that seems to be an unfounding one, but it still seems to persist. I think that the second one is that this committee was intended to have a narrow charge and that we keep sort of reaching outside of that, and I think that was what we did. Let's see that first bullet is not a part, it's not narrow. Well, so again in order to try to say we're going to go through the towns. If you see governance as an organization as standing alone outside of internal, then we do, but that was part of the debate. Why do you think you can do this? So if we try to squelch these things at committee, then a random group of councillors will oppose it anyway which is a much less tidy way of to follow versus to learn about that. You know, which is interesting to me. Exactly. So because of that I don't know I'm still trying to struggle with what RC has been assigned where that comes from. I think the fear of any committee is the fear of a concentration of power of, you know, 25 people out of 13 that will essentially make decisions of which the other eight councillors won't have full information on how that decision was made. That's legitimate. I mean, that's true of any committee that all the work that we do to sort of narrow or help the council make a good decision can also be seen as a restricting information or putting a lens on that's... That would be true of every committee. That's just this committee. I do agree that the existence of this committee in a way mitigates the focus on this. We need some stuff to do. I agree. I hope you're right. Let me say that. I was going to do that. And so we knew we were going to get some... No, no, about... That's my second example. About the getting committees to review the charges. We knew we were going to get pushed back. So to me that sort of tacit approval of us doing that. All right, we're going to accept a recommendation from GOL to do this and to change. Which I think the... the subtext to that was I found something that you weren't supposed to do. Right? That was from... Our revision was you explained why and we sort of said and I think her concern is primarily that we were getting rid of it. When that passed I kind of smiled to myself because I thought, okay, there's something that a lot of people were worried that we would do. Right? And so I think we're sort of slowly just building these things as we do them. The question is at what point do we then say we're going to build this into our charge? Let us do the... We've done them and they've gotten the majority. And so I think it's a debate to have to the council but I think we come to the council and say what do you think that bullet means as opposed to here's how we've been interpreting that and you have already approved this kind of stuff. You know, it would be nice for us to as opposed I wouldn't want to go to the council and say you know, we've been thinking, what do you mean by that? We're initially maybe actionable. Review for clarity just means an actionability. Positioning to heal myself. Right, and I would like to fix our charge. Yeah. And what it says about metabolic ways, blah blah blah blah blah blah maybe we have a bullet point CRC that do not fall under CRC sections charge under the CRC charge comes to us for those reviews. Like somehow mirror of that it would be a separate review separating those two issues instead of compounding it into bullet point number. Refer to us already, we're already sort of being that so to is better than... Without zoning it would have to be made clear to be referred to as only for bullet number two not for bullet number three whereas right now you could just say we're going to send this to GOL because it goes to GOL. But I think the order would be I think well so there's one world which is only land use issues go to CRC and the other and they only go to CRC and then every other measure goes to GOL so that's one way to look at this so because it would be a zoning bylaw anything to do with primarily zoning bylaw but there are other land use bylaws also so that would be one way to divide the labor those all go to CRC, never to GOL and then all other bylaws or measures go to GOL and never to CRC but it doesn't have to well this here the proposed rules will have any bylaw change come to GOL and be closed so the playing board only has authority to make recommendations regarding the zoning bylaw that's the only part we can refer questions about rental bylaw or something like that but that's the only purview is the zoning bylaw so zoning is highly nuanced and highly nuanced and it's a very important world so in the town like Placic Amherst if you look at the TMAC proposal that's really where the concerning is the zoning bylaw that's where the primary concern is I'm sorry the examples that we use for all zoning bylaw so we on the CRC will take a equally nuanced and we'll look at all these things consistency, clarity I don't know if because it's I'm seeing this because clarity, actuality and consistency consistency feels like it belongs here it's about how a bylaw is written and we don't necessarily know because it's easy to say it's great because increase the tax base let's get a 10 we're not doing this a 10 story building with ostrich or I like ostrich but I'm saying it is that we really do are we talking about CRC now? we're talking about finding possible places for and our and all of that and so what are the impacts of putting the DPW on the water or the new school the impact at Fort River versus putting that school on some other site and not just but that impacts traffic it impacts usage but do you have a sense of what I'm trying to say? yeah, yeah, yeah so that would be definitely something that CRC would probably wait in because I guess I think it would more like but that's not a bylaw so that would never come here because in other words, looking in the say the DPW on the CVS law would not be a bylaw change but it might require a zoning change but that's a zoning bylaw and we would then have to look at it in this so here's where we need actual real cases so let's take form-based zoning now let's take a proposal to rate to lower the height of buildings downtown to one story so the CRC would look at that very carefully we have to look at the clarity consistency and actionability because if it's none of those in other words the we wouldn't first of all the planning board is already doing that but we would take another look at that okay see I see it as different forms of sandpaper so then coming to you know coming to the GOL to me seems either redundant for sort of clogging up you know clogging up what the GOL can be doing best I don't I apparently there's a whole backlog of them waiting for us I haven't actually been following but I think that by the time the CRC slash working with the plane board is done with it it would meet all the standards that we've been looking for so I think then sending it here then this group which right now happens to have two people from the other committee would be basically taking the same look I don't know we need examples so any kind of zoning by-law change will be referred to the CRC at least and will be referred to the finance committee because the financial impact and use changes is really important which CRC isn't necessarily the planning board definitely does the planning board does they would pitch that to the and the planning board is required to do all the public hearings so those all have to be done by the planning board it doesn't mean that we can't also do them and there's town attorney review etc so CRC I pulled up its charge planning, zoning, land use public way, public resources housing homelessness relationship between the two we forgot to add rank choice voted so it's missing anything related to say elections no we're going to get that here anything related to elections budgeting of some most of which would go to finance but there could be measures that aren't necessarily financial impact but not so the elections portion public safety enforcement related to public safety you could argue which might be registration potentially although that relates to housing homelessness there's definitely some stuff that does not fall within CRC's charge and the question is do we the question is this is going to be a conversation whatever we propose that town council is going to have a field day with it our charge with the potential of if we ask that to be created do we take our committee charge down to three after we get through this first unless unless some of what's in the CRC I think the CRC charge is too big and I think it's sort of crazy big but we're also getting a snapshot of what municipal governments actually do so much because we're basically a subdivision of the state right so much of what we can do is already defined by the state so what's allocated for town to do you know basically schools is more or less handled by the school committee so almost everything that the municipal governments do that the school committees don't do probably okay no no no other duties as assigned yeah I mean to some extent it could just be review other related to the SSI on other matters referred to GOL and so with the idea being that if some by some bylaw and allows them to give stuff to us if it has no other home but doesn't require I've said it already and it's going to meet a lot of policy role for this committee and many people including myself originally understood this committee not to be a policy creating body when I'm hearing from all the third bullet point some kind of potential policy generating or forming function for this committee and maybe I'm mishearing so you can correct me on that but if what I'm hearing is correct I'm very uncomfortable with that and secondly I think there are going to be a lot of people on the council they're going to be very uncomfortable with it so if we do go this route I think it's important that we be very clear on what it is this third bullet point would be and hopefully we can come to some consensus at the moment I couldn't join in but I don't know what this third bullet point looks like yet but we have voted which is fine very uncomfortable but maybe we should try to write up a third bullet point so we at least have something concrete to look at I think it's going to just come out of the wash as it has already and so far it hasn't been a problem there gets to be a problem I guess maybe we'll have to deal with it but as in the case with finance issue in the last council meeting with your able assistance it was cleared up and that was the end of the story so suppose a crisis of us making policy decisions was dealt with quite simply but if we do end up making policy decisions then I prefer that it's just going to have to come out of the wash in my sense we're trying to figure out what's going to happen in the future we have no idea just write me a third bullet point that I can at least look at and think about right now Evan's trying I know but basically other matters referred to GOL and everyone in the council is going to call what that I think every single committee ought to have the other matters because I think created honestly I don't think reducing the size well let's hit that let's hit that we had enough on that I think that this can be I think that stuff that's actually on the CRC should be I mean we need to get started so but I think that things that are going to be referred to the CRC should be more appropriate to the GOL and I think that the GOL should have a this is my opinion I think the GOL should have a parallel mission as the CRC only they handle different parts different issues I don't think they should handle the same issues I don't think that I don't like the plan and zoning bylaws get referred to GOL I think it's too much I think it's going to be confusing and I think that it will be that it'll mean that really good possible changes to the zoning bylaw changes or good changes could go into an endless loop first bullet point these all become numbers as more letters as we do this but the first and the third well we've sort of agreed on the second do you want to try that since I'm trying to decide how they discuss and so you're ready pardon? he's making some good arguments where we might come in with we want to modify the CRC charge and our charge and this change and everyone will hate us and you're asking him I take it to craft a third bullet point or a third number or a third letter to reflect to some degree the discussion we've been having and he's going to make some changes to the first bullet point as well maybe we should just shut up and we'll look at it when it's in front of me the first one I think is George has disagreed with my interpretation I think we based on the actions that we have taken up to the point so you feel that needs to be and you will obviously revise it and then we'll have something to look at and I can have a problem with and I'm going to say what I think good okay we'll get a it's an action Evan is going to do something and it's all sorts of things sometimes that gear okay so that's the G.O.L. committee charge discussion and Evan is going to be asked to revise the G.O.L. charge for discussion at next meeting these minutes are going to reflect a discussion then followed on to adoption of March 27th and April 10th minutes there is a revision to the April 10th revised version that was emailed 10th minutes are there any other recommended revisions to either March 27th or April 10th I'll move to approve the motion is to I'm sorry I don't have my version in front of me it says the committee held a lengthy discussion with the members of the public it says there was no additional right so that's referring to that should we and he identified who the members of the public okay I just wanted to make sure that it was recognized we kind of went on script because we started talking about it and this may this is the worksheet so there's a list of goals which pretty much got and then the worksheet and that's what we're looking at and she's requested all the committees and so we should go through it at some point saying this to myself as much as anyone and find those because I've worked on this find those parts that say G.O.L and you should look at that or maybe think of other places where and I will send out some documents on that sooner as chair of G.O.L email from Alyssa as chair of rules where she reassigned stuff to G.O.L instead of rules so there is a modified one from her that we should all look at since rules will no longer be in existence so we shouldn't be saying anything they broke you shouldn't there will be a complete set of goals by the May 6th meeting the exceptional last megabyte of YouTube space so the council goals discussion worksheet our charge organization and structure for charge is one of which is ours JCPC, BCG and OCA charge for template conformity I don't really want to tackle OCA but BCG specifically referred to us at some point long time I don't want to but I can I can do it I'm already putting our charge into the 10 hours and JCPC, none of us are on BCG right? so you will do JCPC and Evan is going to do both BCG and our I just propose that since our list of talks we should though at some point talk so that's action we have two further action related to template conformity so I need a motion to adjourn I would move to adjourn