 Thank you. All right, we're recording. Okay, no attendees right now. And I'm going to. Okay. I'm going. I haven't had public. I haven't had any sleep since 333 o'clock this morning and I'm exhausted. I will be wonky. I'm seeing a presence of the quorum. I'm going to call the May 24, 2023 meeting of the GL committee to order pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021. This meeting will be conducted by a remote means members of the public who wish to access the meeting shall 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 that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time by a technological means. I'm going to call the role as a way of checking that we, everyone can hear and be heard. Then Greece. Present. Jennifer Tau. Present. Mandy Joe Hankey. Present. And I am present. Pat the Angeles. Michelle Miller is not with us today. I would like to get right to the non-voting members of the finance committee. It's been two weeks since the bulletin board notice went out. I have received no new CAFs. I sent out 10 or 11 CAFs to people as far back as 2019. I've had two rejections and no other responses. So right now, unless I missed a CAF in my email, but I don't think I did, but right now we have new CAFs from Bob Hegner and Matt Holloway. And who are currently members of the resident non-voting resident members of the finance committee. There are terms and in June. Is it possible? It's a question to simply say the pool is sufficient because we have two good candidates or do we need to wait until they are three or and what happens if there aren't. Mandy, do you have any? Go ahead. The decision on sufficiency per the policy is up to the committee. So the committee could make that decision. Acknowledging. You know, I would be hesitant to acknowledge, despite my views about how good the candidates are, that that's one of the reasons we're declaring the pool sufficient. You know, I think. You know, we could say it's sufficient given the timing and given, you know, that the pool includes people who are maybe already on the finance committee, you know, you know, the pool is sufficient. And given that everyone that you reached out to that had prior replied has not, you know, I think we could do it in a way that doesn't necessarily say. A tip, a hand to, you know, even though there's only two, who would we appoint or that we're declaring it sufficient because we like the candidates. That's what I was worried about. Is how it would appear, which is kind of sad. I'm just checking to make sure we didn't receive any more because I actually thought we did. So Sarah Marshalls from well before the. Sarah Marshalls calf. Submitted one that I believe had finance on it, but it was before the bulletin board was posted. Okay. I'm going to call on Jennifer because I was trying to get her to respond. Yeah. So I haven't personally, I mean. I mean, I don't know how much. So it, we did, we've publicized it. I don't know how much individual counselors have been reaching out. I do believe. Sarah Marshall. Is, you know, she's on this. She's an alternate for the ZBA. And has applied for that. So I would think she. To make a decision for her. She would rather continue on the ZBA where she's a voting member. Let me just. Let me just mention. I just came across her calf and it says finance. ZBA. Yeah. But, but under the policy, unless she submits a separate one after the finance committee, bulletin board notice was posted. She is not technically an applicant for bulletin board. So I assume. She is someone who Pat reached out to. I will do a double check. I sent out between nine and 11. I will reach. I'll check my sent list and I'll reach out. What I'd like us to do then. Is wait until our next meeting, which is June 7th, which is still in time. What's the council meeting after the 7th. 12th. Okay. So that would work. In the 12th and then another one Pat. Wait. Henry. Listed district advisory board finance committee. Who is this. And ZBA. Who ever rolled Henry. But we have to remember under the council policy. Only those. Only those people who submit CAFs after the bulletin board notice goes up are technically applicants. Anyone that submitted within two years of that notice gets contacted by someone from GOL to ask if they're still interested in that. And if so, they're told to submit a new calf. Yeah, I don't know where my list is of who I sent to, but. I'm sending you a number of them because I just came across another one. So I think we just need Pat to double check to make sure she reached out to those that were recently submitted. Likely because of the ZBA and planning board process that might have included finance on them. To see if they're. Yeah. No, that's fine. That's fine. Finance in terms of timing. The last council meeting meeting in June is June 26. That means that interviews for the positions have to happen. By the end decisions on recommendations. Athena can correct me have to be made by Thursday, the 22nd. At like four so that Athena can put the names on the notice meeting notice. So. If we don't make it, if we make a decision on June 7. We would have to do the interviews on June 21. The statements of interest would have to be due before the 14th because under the policy, the statements of interest need posted one full week before the interviews. And all the applicants would have to be available for the 21st or whenever we're meeting. So because their term ends, if we don't get it done by then. Because, you know, they can't make the interviews. Or new people. And they can't do what happens to the finance committee. Do they, can they. They just don't have them or can. Mandy. And then I'll call you Jennifer. I would suggest. If we can't get every applicant in for an interview by that 21st date. Because of scheduling issues. Pat, you may want to start now ask if the two people whose terms are ending would be willing to extend their terms by one or two months. And the GOL could vote that on the 21st as a recommendation. The process. And the council could make that. Happen on the 26th. Okay. That seems reasonable. Okay. Jennifer. And then anybody else. I was just to say, yeah, if we have another, I mean, I'll do some active outreach, you know, between now and the end of the weekend. I just have to say for planning board and ZBA. I for. For the last like two months. Any time I correspond with. With my district, even if it's depressed, I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to do that. Any time I correspond with. With my district, even if it's to pass on the traffic alerts, because they've been impacting our district. I always have the links to the, you know, calves for planning. I mean, I have a blurb that I just sort of cut and paste into everything. I got two. You know, one for each. It's really challenging. I don't know what to do about that. And I guess I feel more relaxed because we have two really good people, but that's not. Yeah. Yeah. A couple of observations. First of all, I mistakenly sent you. Two or three submissions from 2022. So just, they're probably people. You already reached out to second of all. Their names that are not on the council. I'm not on the finance committee. Yeah. And you're right. Sarah Marshall submitted. With. I'm not really naming at least two. I don't know the timing, but I just sent that one to you. Bob Hagner. Who, you know, is an outstanding member. Of finance as is Matt Holloway Bob has actually been on. He's been on a total of. Four plus years because he was appointed. In the first group. He's been on a total of six years. He's been on a total of six years. However, but he's not, he has not served six years. Right. And Matt Holloway has only served one year. Yeah. So those are just. Yes. Observations. That's helpful to know. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I guess I'd be more. No. I get, I be. One, I want to do this properly. But I guess I would be more concerned if we. I would be more comfortable on the finance committee generally. So, but that's not. Yeah. Okay. So that's that update. I guess we can go right now. Get the two proclamations out of the way. Where I had those set up. Okay. Yeah, let's look at the citation. Okay. I'm sorry. In the first. And I found a couple of things that I thought needed correcting. In the first now, therefore. Which one are we on? The citation. Okay. Recognition of Arwin. I'm sorry. In the first now, therefore it says here achievement. And it means it should be her. If you look, it says a copy of this citation. It just says B sent. It should be to be sent. And I believe there's a comma in the last whereas after 2023. That should be there. Yeah, you're right. There should be. I always forget that to be sent. Yes. Let's get that one. This one's right to cause a copy. Be sent. No. Cause a copy. I think to be sent. Do you think. If it's correct with just B, then that's fine. It just sounds. Jennifer's name is added to counselor sponsors. Okay. One thing at a time. Are we, are we going to add to. Here or leave it be as Athena is suggesting. Cause a copy of the station B. To cause something. I think you're causing it to be. Yeah, that's, I think so too. Mandy has her hand up, but I don't think we need to. It's not on that, but you could just say to send a copy of the station. To. Arwin. I like to be better. We're not to be. That is the question. So many. Yeah. Go ahead. Mandy, Joe has her hand up. Go ahead, Mandy. I had, yeah, go ahead. The second, whereas this is a couple of questions. So. It says highest achievement of girl can earn in girl scouting. So I just have a couple of questions because I know Boy Scouts have. Really changed their whole thing. Is Girl Scouts limited to. Only girls or girls. Boys. Be there. And then number two. Do you have to earn the gold award before you turn 18? Okay. I think it's girls, girls and, and. People who identify as girls. Okay. Then should we say that a person can earn. I was worried about the 18. Do you have the gold award before you turn 18? I can try to find that, but I. My sense is it's in, might be in the year you turn 18. So that it covers you all the way through high school. I, I can connect, I can connect with my girl scout connections and find that out. Is there a reason you're asking this? Is there certain, because they reviewed this. No, I guess the question about 18 is. At 18, we tend not to refer to. Kids is, you know, people as girls and boys, we tend to refer to them as men, women or adults. Right. And so, so I was curious. It just that, that word stuck out to me for those two reasons. Which is why I was asking the questions. So let me, you're saying in the second whereas. Yeah. That a young woman can earn. Or a major highest achievement. Please don't talk over each other. I'd like things to be casual. Jennifer and then. Well, I was just going to say highest achievement that a member can earn in girl scouting. That would work. Does that feel okay to you? Fine. I think, I think they're called girls until they're, they're not girl scouts. They're girl scouts until they're, there's a different category of girl scouts once they turn 18. Right. So I think it's a girl scout term. Yeah. Just let me mention this was built off of the one that we did two years ago or three years ago. And I'm fine with the change. I don't think that the people asking us will have a problem, but I do agree that with the thing about how they refer to girls. May not be what we want, but. I think that if you say that a member can earn. That's fine. Jennifer has her hand up. She's a sponsor as well. Sorry. Jennifer, you're cutting out. I was going to say member in girl scouting. I mean it. But I think members fine. Or the highest achievement that can be earned in girl scouting. Mandy. Yes. I'm okay. Not changing it. If. I don't want to go back to Jennifer's suggestion. I like that. Okay. Can you say it again, Jennifer? It's the highest achievement that. Can be earned in girl scouting. As to achievement that can be earned in girl scouting. Yeah. Everybody comfortable with that. Our people comfortable. Did we get all the other ones? I think. It needs a date fixed to it as well. Maybe that's on the next page. No. It's down there. Oh, God. Thank you. And we changed. Here to her. We put in the comma after. 2023. So I think that's it. Someone make a motion. I move that we. Layer the citation. They're consistent and actionable. Is that how we do it for this? Yeah. Second. Second. Okay. And then we'll do a round of voting. Lynn Griezmer. Yes. Mandy. Joe. Hi. Jennifer. Yes. And I'm an eye. Okay. Let's go on to the Juneteenth proclamation. Mandy. The one in the packet. Had two sponsors, but I believe that. Alicia Walker. Wanted to sponsor it too. That's right. That's true. Thank you. Is there anything that. People are seeing. Or have seen. Mandy. The community sponsor shouldn't have a comma after it unless. We were supposed to be adding other name. Yeah. Ancestral bridges or something. That's interesting that Anika didn't put that down. Yeah. And Dabora is. Not. Ancestral bridges per se. Right. Yeah. It was just. Yeah. It could have been. So. Should we add it? Let me check. If you can get an answer right now. While she's doing that. Can anyone see anything that needs to be. That impacts clarity consistency or action ability. Is it otherwise the same as last year? I think there was some new. Changes. First. I think this, there have been some changes, but I don't remember what they are. Apologize. Should the two and a half under the second whereas joined together. Yeah. Thank you. Spell check on. Texting. Oh. I'm not going to ask what you're saying. Don't worry about it. I'm not. Athena, do we drive you crazy? You'll have to try harder. I bet we can rise to the occasion. At Nica's request, please add. Ancestral bridges per se. I'm not going to ask what you mistakenly put in. Don't worry about it. I'm not. Athena, do we drive you crazy? I'm not going to ask what you mistakenly put in. I'm not going to ask what you mistakenly put in. I'm not going to ask what you mistakenly put in. Please request, please add ancestral bridges as a sponsor. Unless someone sees something else that needs. To be amended. I make a motion that we declare the 2023 Juneteenth proclamation clear consistent and actionable. Second. Okay. And let's vote. Mandy Joe. Hi. Jennifer. Hi. Lynn. And I'm an eye. So it's unanimous. With one absent. I'm not saying that. Oh. Okay. Let me look at this list. The other thing that I'd like to. Hear a little bit. From you guys. Well, let's go to the ensuring safe access. To legally protected reproductive. Gender affirming healthcare services. Which were referred to us by the council. And Lynn. No, Mandy Joe, you're one of the sponsors of that. No, you can continue. I'm texting Anna. Okay. In some ways, I feel like I need to recuse myself. I'm not really, but I am so in favor of this. I don't think that's a reason for. We're all there. I think the only question is that we want to make sure that before we send it to legal counsel that we've. Through it carefully and under looked at it, but the other thing is have. So did you and Anna, you and or Anna. Consult with Paul regarding any issues around implementation. So we do have comments from Paul. On the whole bylaw, we did not include those in the presentation of the. One we put in the packet for the council for referrals. So I don't know whether Anna. I don't think Anna is going to be able to jump on, but I'm waiting for that. Let me pull up. So I can go through some of the comments or talk about them at least. Okay. Thank you. Mandy, I don't think I have a word version. So if there are edits, you can either send me a word version and I'll keep track or you can share. Yeah. So, so I have a word version that I think. It includes the comments Paul had and was also what was referred, but I haven't gone back because, because Anna's the one that finally accepted everything and then removed the comments. I can send that to you. Let me do that now. Give me a second. So I think it's the one that was referred, but includes the comments. But I, I will say, I have not compared the two, but I'm pretty sure it is. Okay. If you know, you should be getting that. And so, you know, like I said, Paul had given us comments. We did not make, we made a few changes related to those comments more of the things we could address without necessarily legal review. Many of his comments relate to the need for legal review or further discussion at with some other staff members. But we did not make changes related to that because we needed, you know, unless the bylaw was referred for discussion and recommendation, there's no sense in putting all that time in, which is why we pulled the comments out. And now it's time to show you all those comments so that we know what we're asking for in terms of legal and all. And I have a question or two. Yeah, so I can go through some of these. It looks like Athena has brought it up. And it'd be made a tad larger. I can see Paul Bachman, but I can't quite see his comment. So the first one is on the definition of Amherst official. And he indicates it's a very broad definition. It's exactly what we expected Paul to say. Pat, if you remember, it's exactly what he said to this is the definition we used in our face recognition bylaw before we pulled face recognition. So it's exactly what I expected him to say. We, we just need to hammer out exactly who would count. So my question in this is many Joe. Does this include elected officials? Yes. As long as we are acting on behalf of the town. So again, it's something that needs discussed and all, and I would caution us getting into discussions today. I just thought I'd go through the comments. So that when Pat, I assume we'll say send it to legal. Pat can talk about. Are there other definitions legal would like to see or something. I have a question about the official. The new sent a health center. That is in our building, but I don't. Isn't it run by the Hilltown health center or something like that. So if they're not employees of the town, how are they covered in terms of maintaining privacy, et cetera, et cetera. So the health center itself. Is an actual health. Health care entity. And so they actually have a whole lot of requirements. Under federal law, including the HIPAA requirements. You know, and so there's other things there that some places have, if you're actually a health thing, and this gets into a different. Issue that this particular. Safe access doesn't deal with, which is in some sense the crisis pregnancy centers and their advertising of what is presumably health. The health center would be subject to health care without actually being health care providers and being subject to those. HIPAA and other health care regulations that someone like the Musante health center or a hospital would be subject to. That's not what this is. So this definition as Paul says is very broad. You'll see it's pretty much any. You'll see it's very broad. You'll see it's very broad. You'll see it's very broad. While acting on behalf of the town. That's, that's one of the key phrases while acting on behalf of the town. And when performing work for the town under something. And so. For example, if we give money to Musante health center. I don't know whether we do, but say we did. Because they got a grant from us or something. If they were. They would be subject to this, but if they're performing work under some other grant or some other funding, that, that work performed under that other stuff under this definition would not be subject to this bylaw. Only the work performed under this grant. So, so what I will say is it is an extremely broad definition. Which is what Anna and I started out with, but. But we should hear from KP law as to whether it's even manageable. But we intended to start out with something as broad as possible. Okay. Thank you. Can we move on to Paul's next comment. Or any comment or question that other members of the committee have. Yeah, I do. And I do. I'm not sure what I'm going to do. I think the reason I raised it is because in the meeting. You know, because I kept making. I wanted. I explained to Mandy Joe and Anna. I was trying to get as good an example as possible. And the one Mandy Joe you used was, you know, you as accounts, you as a person who lives in Amherst. Provides a place for somebody here from out of state. Who's come here for an abortion. You're not acting on behalf of the town. No, I'm not. And, and that's not what, what this would do. So. No, I'm not. Yeah. The Amherst official defines who can give information. To someone seeking information. From another state, basically. So you'd have to look at the prohibitions, which is actually where the next comments are. You know, and so. So, you know, I was talking about, you know, information. So what the bylaws planning is intending to do is to. Prohibit Amherst officials. If we're acting in our official capacity from a handing information over. And ensuring that if we're acting in our capacity as Amherst officials, that information is kept confidential. Whether or not it actually falls under those rules that Pat was talking about. And so it really is aimed at what. People acting on behalf of the town can disclose. To. Other people. Not what I as a private individual can disclose. So as Paul says in this comment. He's, he, he understands with the broad definition, how does prohibition number one interact with that definition. Legal proceedings and all of that. So he basically sets forth his concern there and the need for the KP law review in his comment as to C1. And C2, since he copied the comment basically. Right. Which is why we. You know, Anna and I did not change the definition. We recognize we have to have those conversations with legal. How do they interact and what can we. Do. The next one. Is about public records. And I guess this one again probably goes to legal because. Yep. And then the next one is to under state law as a town. Narrow the definition of public records, I guess would probably be the way I. Would phrase it to KP law because I think that's what we're intending to do is to say, Hey, we can't give this information out. You know, we're the bylaws trying to say to the town. No, you can't disclose that information or hand that information over. Even if you receive a public records request in the state. You can't use that definition and say, no, it's not a public record anymore. Not if you're going to use it for that purpose. So that's our intent in the bylaw. Lynn. Yeah, I'm glad this will go to KP law. Having been this. Been. Subject to a significant significant public records request. And the redaction thereof. Is there anything that is health related identified youth, et cetera? I mean, Athena knows this much better than I do. Maybe in the public record, but they're then struck out of the public record. They're blocked. They're X doubt or blocked out. So I, I'm glad this is in there because that's the issue of health related things in public records. Clearly. Are part of what you're allowed to eliminate. But I think that the question is how much of it. Okay. Thank you. Jennifer. I guess more of a question. What legal counsel would weigh in on this. Can a town supersede a states regulation or are we. We can. I thought we would make it stricter if we, but we can't make it less restrict. Oh, we can make it stricter. Okay. That's good. Generally that's the case in, in legal standards. It's why we need KP law to. To weigh in on that. Okay. Let me see. This is a really good. I was concerned about competent understanding competent jurisdiction when I first read this in the council packet. And does it. What does it refer to because right now the federal courts would probably support Massachusetts, but who knows how long that will stay. Do you have any comment beyond that beyond your question maybe. So let me talk about number four Paul Paul said he would need to talk to obviously town attorney and police chief on custody issues. Where the highlight on competent, you know, in the two places where I put the comment of limit to Massachusetts Court, what about federal courts and he actually brought that up to me during the last meeting, maybe during a break. So I highlighted it and added that in. The phrase accept is required by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction. And he said, okay, so what if the Texas court has the subpoena. Does this essentially create the big loophole. We're trying to close. I guess the way it would be. Because Texas is court is a court of quote, competent jurisdiction. So I think the question on that one is, can we limit it to specific courts or can we even. Get rid of that exception completely. You know, or could we say only a Massachusetts court is a court of competent jurisdiction, not a court in Texas or in Florida, or only the Massachusetts district court of the federal courts? Like, can we limit that? Because as Andy pointed out, that phrase might actually basically allow Texas to drive a hole through what we're trying to prevent. Say. Yeah. Okay. Anything else. You'll see some resolved issues that we didn't delete in this one. We had the wrong words. So that comment can be deleted with it. It actually says town agenda because we just typed something in wrong. In Scrivener type things. So the resolved ones we, we, it was just. A lot of. Issues that we fixed before we presented it to you all. And then he talks about the contract issues in terms of how we would enforce this, which would also need to be reviewed. On whether it's possible. And if so, how. In terms of getting that information, I would say before. GOL discusses substantively. Are these the enforcement mechanisms we want. Anything else. Those were the comments he proposed. He provided to us. Are there any other comments from members of the committee or Athena. Lynn. I. I'm hoping that in the legal opinion. We might. The KP law might comment on how this. Act goes further than the state law. And I'm sure it does, but I want to make, I'd like to have the council understand that. Okay. Mandy. Yeah, I would say with that one. Goes further than the other phrases I could use as supports the state law. And also interacts with that state law. You know, sort of what's that interaction. How does it support it? And. Those are some other phrases to use to get to, I think, what Lynn's asking for. Thank you. Okay. All right. Anything else. And Mandy, Joe, why don't you make the recommendation. The motion. I don't, I don't know whether we need a full vote, but. Yeah. So I think we need a. I think this is one. I think we need a, so do you want a motion, Pat? I don't know. I would just say it. I think we should get a KP law opinion before we talk about this substantively. Yes. Absolutely agreed. So that's done. Right. That was easier than I thought it was going to be. Where am I? Okay. Yeah. I would like to just ask a clarifying question. It's a memory question. Anna introduced back, I think in the fall, the whole issue around the clinics that. Are. Yeah. They are, you know, trying to talk people out of abortions. She withdrew that. Am I correct? That is correct. Thank you. That's all I needed to know. Thank you. I think we're going to get a little bit of a, a little bit of a smooth draw on and in its, in some sense in its place, we're trying, we're thinking about this route over reintroducing that one. Thank you. Okay. All right. So we can move ahead on that. Where are we? I had written in the minutes review and make a recommendation of the proposed flag policy. Okay. Okay. I requested Paul have KP law look quickly at the banner changes that we made in the public way. And I think I confused what I put in the packet. So, but we haven't referred. Lynn, go ahead. Did we get an opinion? No, no, not yet. Let me just mention it. Yeah. I think the KP law is very backed up right now because of town meetings and budget periods. And so we're having trouble getting opinions on just about everything. Yeah. Yeah. And it's interesting because in the bylaw, disposition thing, when it gets to parades and stuff like that. Again, it talks about free speech issues. Which is what we tried to address. Clearly in the banner changes. So I hope we can make those limits. By defining it as a government speech. Okay. I guess we can go over the bylaw review committee. Recommendations and the memo that we receive from Paul. It's taken forever to get him to respond, which has been a little bit stressing. And it came into the packet last minute because he said he would have it ready and then it was not ready. So have you had a chance to look through it? Lynn. I have to some extent, but also he referred to this as the second memo. The first memo went out and there have been several men, memos there. A memo went out to him, I think in January of 2021. And I did not find a response to that. So this is his latest response to these items. I had a meeting with him where he basically went through these. The legal opinion on parades and public. Meetings we did not go through, but the other. Items we did. And the goal, I just want to, you know, because I was, I've been on and off GOL around this issue over. You know, two different times. The goal in this case is either the, these, these bylaws were identified during the initial bylaw review. That was done by a committee per the charter. Okay. And then they were referred to GOL. And then they were referred to GOL. And then they were referred to GOL. For resolution as to whether we were going to look at them, make changes and or say, no, they're fine the way they are. I, as I looked at this memo, it did not seem like it was the full list of all those bylaws. No, these are the ones that, you know, because there's a group and I apologize. I don't have those numbers. I'd have to look back on another, and I might actually, I don't know if that's the case. I don't know if that's the case. I don't know if that's the case. I don't know if that's the case. I don't know if that's the case. Well, we had casually informally said. They're fine. Let's leave them alone. Okay. But these were all ones with larger questions. Okay. Athena on the ones that we have quote. Casually said, they're fine. Do we need to bring that back to the council to officially take them off the list. I think. I think we need to bring that back to the council. So our report. Or something to kind of close that. That loop. Okay. So what I'm, I guess what I'm trying to move toward is. We can start reviewing Paul's memo. And that's perfectly fine. But I'm trying to get us as GOL. I think we need to bring that back to the council. We want it in a consolidated way. Bring this list back to the council. As an update and say either we're. This one's fine. Or this one we moved with. Etcetera. Any ideas. When your hands still up. No, that was my, my whole. I don't want it. I don't want this to come back to the council in a piece meal fashion. Okay. Okay. Make some decisions and communicate it and then take what actions we need to. Okay. Thank you. No, that's fine. And Jennifer, you seem frozen. Although you're. Not sure. You guys keep freezing to my frozen now. Now you're, no, now you're moving. Now, yeah. But one of the things that I can do is I could go. Start that. I mean. These are clear. I think there's some actions and things we need to look at within it. And I can go back to that. The list of bylaws that we informally said, let's, let's leave them alone. Okay. Okay. So why don't you and I plan to, to meet before the next GOL meeting and see if we can get this all cleaned up so that you can provide a report. And it's, it's clear what, what. That would be great. So you and I can work on that before the next meeting. Okay. The next meeting is on the seventh. And I will not be back until June 7th. Yeah. So I have to, I'll have to meet with you before somewhere next. Cause I will be out of town. Is that possible for you? Yeah, we can do that. Okay. We can set that up at the end of the meeting. Thank you. Okay. So is that comfortable with two people? Yes, that makes sense. And I know that there were other ones. I'm sorry. I should raise my hand. Don't worry about it. It doesn't bother me. I'm not talking over each other like I'm doing over you. That's okay. There were other ones that maybe needed. Yeah, there were. From other people. Yes. Those, most of those are right here. Yeah. Okay. That's what I, that was my. In the meeting that I had with him. So I will go through because they had, we had the bylaw review committee had prioritized items. I'll go back over that before I meet with you, Athena. So we can look at that. And these were items that. They considered top priority. So. Okay. Jennifer. I'm just wondering the bylaw review committee. Did that exist the first year of the council only? Yes, it did. Yeah. Yeah. And it was a huge effort. I mean, they did. Unbelievable. Work. Bob Richie was kind of the chair coordinator of it. And there were two other. It was not a council committee, but Evan Ross, Alyssa Brewer, and I were all on the committee. Bob Richie, as Lynn said, and then I'm blanking on. Oh, Bernie. Bernie Kubiak was on the committee. And there was one other person. Jeff Kravitz. Yeah. Jeff Kravitz. And it began with. The committee that was before. Anyway, yes. Oh, I didn't know that. Okay. That's interesting. That's one reason why I want, I asked. Provided a little groundwork, Jennifer, because I knew that. You weren't on the council at that point. And yet I also want to just. Contribute to the fact that it was a huge effort. And what we're trying to do is clean this up. Because it started with GOL. All right. It was referred to GOL in our first term. It was on the transition document from the first to the second term. And I'd like it just not to be on the transition documents from the second to the third. Well, it's like what we just did with the CRC. Yes. Exactly. Stay there forever. Right. Right. Right. All right. Do we want to go over. Paul's list. Or. I think the ones I had. Questions about. Would be the parade one. Residential. Renner property. That's in CRC. I'm not even worried about that one. But it was prioritized. Or do you want to wait? I guess I'm trying to understand that there's a very. Long attorney's opinion. About parades. And again. It seems like we can. We can really only affect a few things like the time. Providing alternative. Roots. If there is a conflict with something that's already. Parade that's already happening. Do people want to talk about this now or wait until Athena. Until the next meeting. I'm fine with going ahead. I would actually suggest. We deal with the easy ones. And just say, okay, now that can go on the chart is resolved or whatever. Yeah. Most of them. The library. One. Let me see. So I think that the. Personnel bylaw one. I think is fine. That's, I think the update answers that. The human rights commission. That's been taken care of it. Well, it's. The DEI director and the human rights director will be working on that when I say taken care of. And that's also true of the personnel by law. The human rights. And I think that the. Personnel bylaw one. I think is fine. That's, I think the update answers that. The human rights and human rights commission. The DEI director and the. Human resources director will be working on that. I'm hoping we can move these along because all of those things were said before. Yeah. So. Let me see. License and permits and denial. It's a. It did seem that it was fine that. Yeah, it's it the term other municipal charges. Is broad and it encompasses everything that's listed in the bylaw. So I think that one is fine. Unless somebody has seen something that I'm not seeing. I haven't. I didn't read this one that carefully. Yeah, it's a tricky one. Well, let's, let's let it be then and go on to the ones that I'm not seeing. I think that's fine. Yeah, because I don't want to wait. I do want to get to the snow and ice because we have a couple of things that have come up about that. Again, wetlands protection. All of this is supposed to have been happening. I'm hoping it will happen this time. Right to farm. Same thing bylaw three, four, six. Am I going too fast? I think that were. Yeah, I think that's fine. I think that's fine. I think that's fine. I think that's perfectly what this is telling me. And that's what I thought it was telling me was. We're going to be seeing a bunch of these bylaws. Come back from staff. Yeah. So, well, we hope, I mean. Yeah, we hope. So, so would the, would the committee's action be to take them off the list and. Yeah, I think that was proposed by the town manager. Just to. I think I would like, I'd like. I'm sorry, Jennifer, go ahead. No, finish. My question can come after. I would like us to keep them on a list. But. Be very clear that we. Need either another update and or. Propose changes to these bylaws. To be brought forth to the council. You know, when ready, I. I'm looking at this and I'm going, there's no way we're going to resolve all of this by 2000 end of 2020. No, no, but the thing that I've, I'm sorry. I just want to say one thing. The thing that feels critical to me is that we keep pushing Paul, because these are the same requests we had last year. And possibly the year before, and I know he's extraordinarily busy. But, you know. So, so I just want to, I agree that we need to keep track of them so that we know whether. We get updates on them periodically, Jennifer. Yeah. And I don't want to waylaid the decision, but. The illegal dumping and littering. Does that apply town wide? Or is that being thought just for conservation land? Well, that one of the things is that with that, they were, the question was, do we want to expand where that's happening? Okay. So can I ask a question? Cause this is a really huge issue in. District three. No, no, no, because. I know. No, I'm not. I knew you were going to say that. That's all. Right. No, no, no, but it's, it's a really problematic. I have pictures after picture after picture. Of, you know, it's just, yeah. So could that apply? You know, the. Yeah, I'm trying, I'm trying to get the actual bylaw. Hold on. All right. This says no person shall place or cause to be placed any waste, refuse boxes or any other matter in or on any street park or commons. So I think it's already covered in the original bylaw. It may not be enforced. And it talks about the public way or any other public land or inland waters. But what it doesn't say is conservation land. For say. I'm going to, Lynn, I'm going to go to Mandy and then I can come back to you. Please take my hand. Sorry. Lynn could have gone first. Yeah. So I. I'm trying to remember Pat, you probably remember better than me, but I think this was. You know, both of those paragraphs are fairly vague. Right. Within 20 yards of this and in theory, what that says it waters property of another lands dedicated for open space. You know, it says conservation agriculture, you know, in theory, 20 yards of a public way or any other public land in theory, it's not vague, but yet at the same time, it's kind of vague. Yeah. And so I think what they were thinking was. You know, I don't know. I don't know what specific. Get a little more specific or define some things instead of just use words, maybe start defining. What open space is, you know, dedicated open space purposes and. Yeah. Yeah. So I think that's what they were. Yes, it is exactly what they were concerned to it. Well, you're right up. Yeah. So, so perhaps that I don't, I can work on that too. I want to go back to. Jennifer's concern. And that is that. At in looking at this bylaw. How do we deal in fact with people who literally walk through neighborhoods and litter. And is this the place to deal with that? And maybe, you know. Paul or somebody I can't remember in what situation was talking about. You know, four beer kegs that got left on. And the town really couldn't do anything about it because it was on private property. And yet. In neighborhoods near. The university. This is a serious problem. Well, there is criminal. There's a $250 fine. There's a $250 fine. There's a $250 fine. With for criminal enforcement and the same penalty or non-criminal enforcement is by police officers, superintendent of public works, public health agents, health officers, or a health director. So I'm, I'm. I need some clarification and perhaps one of either land or mandate can give it. About private property. But this, what if it's the street? The street is included in here. And we, you know, and we can, and if we define the terms, we can be very specific about public ways, et cetera. Mandy. So what's interesting is the streets covered by this first sentence and the second sentence, but property of another is included in the second paragraph. I think that's one long sentence, believe it or not. So that's a second paragraph. But it does say. Or within 20 yards of such water, it's more on property of another or on lands dedicated. So. You know, again, I think part of the thing was it's so. Everything's mixed up together in this and vague and not clear as to. given what we've talked about with snow and ice, we're looking at like five different people here. And do we run into similar problems with that that we've run into with snow and ice of people just pass the buck off to, well, it's not me, it's the health director. No, it's not me, it's the DPW. Do they not know who should be writing the ticket given? And not everybody can write a ticket because DPW can't write tickets. So again, and probably police officers would be traffic officers. Superintendent of Public Works can't enforce it really. Health agents, health office, can they issue citations? The health inspector, I believe can, but I don't know about that. I didn't even know if that's true. And this would be- I would assume they do because aren't they the ones that issue it for restaurants? It makes, yeah, okay. And the other thing is, it seems to me that this should be in the inspection department because they're the ones that see the property and they're gonna hate us. Jennifer? Yeah, I'm just gonna say, I mean, the issue with all this is you rarely see the person doing it. So that's the challenge in terms of issuing a ticket or citation. Right. Every house in your district needs a video camera that's on 24 hours a day paid for through these fines. All we need is university to retain someone to clean up the streets every Monday. Right. I like that better. That's a great idea. They won't do it. I can't, you're- I made a request, it was not asking. I'm asking, I know I keep freezing. I'm gonna- Yeah, that's okay. Where are we? Regulations of signs is gonna become an important priority for, I'm moving from littering and illegal dumping. Is that okay? The regulation of signs is gonna be the planning director. It's an important priority. So they will work on it. They'll add it to their work plan. So who knows? And then I'm back to parades. I wanna look at the time. Oh, we're fine. Okay, I wanna make sure that we look at Snow and Ice a little bit before, so do people have people had time to read this? Tracy's email? No, that's for Snow and Ice. Yeah, yeah. No, the parades and public meetings issue. Okay, all right, then we'll leave that for the next meetings because it's gonna be a whopper, I guess, maybe, maybe. All right, then I would like us to move to Snow and Ice and Tracy's comments are kind of important and she was not able to be here to make them. There's no one right now in our audience. There are a couple of things that I noticed that she's talking about having DPW. Be the enforcer and because they have snow removal equipment and stuff, but that seems to me to be part of the problem and that we've had is that DPW has cleaned things that residents then want them to continue to clean where it's not their responsibility. But I'm gonna go to Jennifer, go ahead. Yeah, I think Tracy is okay with inspection services or DPW. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I wanna, I will reach out to her about why it's not DPW. Well, didn't Paul not want it? I thought maybe Paul would be more amenable to inspection services. Paul wanted one entity and we offered he wanted either the police department or inspection services. So I thought. So I think Tracy would feel good with inspection services over the police. Yes, absolutely, yeah, from everything I can. But I will reach out to her. I wanna explain why DPW is not because they don't generally issue citations. And she also brought up the idea of curb cuts or curb ramps or and making it or to mention where it says abutting sidewalks at crosswalks and intersections. Where is that? In the charge, I believe. Yeah, and then she offered even language from Greenfield or Northampton. Right, right. Let me see. So what she's talking about section A under purpose revising access to sidewalks and public ways to access the two sidewalks including abutting curb cuts, curb ramps and to public ways. So it would be people be comfortable with adding that in the purpose. Her amendment. Can you read that? Yes, she's suggesting revising access to sidewalks and public ways is to amend it to say access to sidewalks including abutting curb cuts slash curb ramps and to public ways. And the rest of the sentence continue. Curb cuts and curb ramps? Yes, as curb cuts slash curb ramps. And what was the, I'm sorry. Public ways. Public ways and then it would say public parking places. Okay. Yeah. I don't think we need the and to in front of public ways. Yeah, I don't think so. Yeah, I agree. Yeah, that was my error. And let me see. Is there anything else that's come up? I'm trying to remember. I think that was, yeah. Yeah, I think that was everything that she was saying. Am I wrong Jennifer? You looked at it clearfully as well. Yeah, you know, I did. Cause I just wrote her back and said, thanks for sending it. And then she wrote back, but I see it's already there and just responded. She said, Michelle had asked a question whether other towns include snow and ice and vegetative overgrowth in one by law. And she said, some happen separately if we were going to have it together, which is good to include vegetative overgrowth. But I see we have that. Yeah, yeah. Okay. Mandy? Going along with what Tracy had us add in section A about purpose. I'm just looking at, we talk about sidewalks in section B, but section C is public ways. And so this is where Tracy talked about the plowing onto corners essentially from things. And so I wonder, I think we should add in that first sentence that says obstruction on any public way sidewalk or public parking place, any public way sidewalk, including whatever that phrase we just added was. Curb cuts. A budding curb cuts and curb ramps. Or just, I don't think we need a budding there. Any public way sidewalk, curb cut, curb ramp or public parking space, maybe. Yeah, what was that? And then I think it covers both sections. And clears up the other thing Tracy was talking about. Right, right. Anything else? Go ahead, Mandy. This is more for the motion. Athena, would this just be easier as a repeal and replace at this point? Yeah, that would be so much easier. Just thinking about the motion going forward. Yes, please recommend to repeal and replace. Mandy, would you make the motion? Athena, can you create quickly a separate document that just calls this 3.40 obstruction of public ways and snow and ice removal? Just like accept everything. And because then we can just in the motion reference the document. Yeah, let me see if I can do this quickly. I just want to make sure I retain all the changes. Yeah. Okay, so it looks like, no, I can't because these are actually underlined and struck through. So I have to go through and take out all the crossed out language and unread and not underlined. I thought it was all track changes, but it's not. So weird. If you want to do minutes or something and I can try and quickly do that. Okay, in the packet we have the May 10th, 2023. Meeting minutes. Are there any issues that anyone wants to address seeing any hands? I would like to make a motion that we accept the May 10th, 2023 meeting minutes as presented. Is there a second? Mandy, okay. Oh, Jennifer, thank you. Yeah. Okay, and we'll start with you for the vote, Jennifer. Yes. Okay, Lynn. Yes. Mandy. Aye. And I'm an aye. So it's four in favor, one absent. Is that enough time? No, huh? What can we do? I'm almost there. Yeah, that's fine. Yeah, please, please. I could tell a joke since nobody's there. It's just weird that it showed up like it was track changes, but it actually wasn't. I think we did a lot of progress with this bylaw revision. Yeah, I think we did too. I have a question because I have trouble when I go to copy sent so I can send somebody the track changes or I just want to print a copy with the track changes of something that's in our packet or the council's packet. And I'm having, how do you print something so the track changes are visible for yourself? You don't need to answer that, Athena. I was trying to give you more time, but it's a legitimate question and I can get the answer from you later. Okay, I think that's it. Amazing, thank you. I see two more quick things. In C, there's that lined out or, and then in non-criminal disposition, there's just a missing comma between snow and ice. Those were the only two I quickly saw. So with that, I guess I'll make a motion. One second because I realized that one of the Tracy's other things was about the complaint letter that DPW sends out. If they receive a complaint, they send a letter that says, we had this in the packet a while ago, that there are a number of days before it has to be addressed, which is now slightly different than this by-law because we're saying a shorter period of time. We changed B3 to 10 days. Oh, that's right, okay. Right. The overgrowth. So the complaint letter can go out with 10 days, yeah. Okay, thank you. I didn't remember that. Okay. Are you ready for it, Pat? Absolutely. Okay. I move to recommend the council repeal general by-law 3.40 snow and ice in its entirety and replace it with general by-law 3.40 obstruction of public ways and snow and ice removal as presented at GOL on May 24th, 2023? Or as recommended. Does that work, Athena? As presented. Why wouldn't we say recommended? Oh, I moved to recommend the council adopt or rescind and replace. Yeah, got it. Thank you. I guess, sorry, I forgot one thing. And to declare the obstruction of public ways and snow and ice removal by-law clear consistent and actionable. This is fun getting this one out of GOL. Is there a second? Second. And I just want to say Mandy, Joe and Jennifer at the council meeting that will now, oh, I don't know. Can we do this first reading on Monday the 5th, Athena? I don't think so. You could put the first reading on the 5th as long as by Friday. We post. That reading can be on the 12th. Yeah, okay. If it's posted on the bulletin board on Friday, the 26th. Yeah. All right, so we'll put this as first reading and I'm going to be calling since Pat won't be there. So Jennifer and Mandy, Joe, you're going to be speaking on this one. Yeah. Mandy, Joe, keep quiet if you can. I would love to see Jennifer present as vice president. I'm happy to do it. Yeah. I would love to see Jennifer do it too. Jennifer's our vice chair. I'm happy to do it. If there's a report to be made, I hope you're going somewhere fun. I'm going to my great nephew's graduation in Florida. Oh, that sounds fun. It'll be nice, but I don't like Florida. So for many ideological reasons and also it's just not my kind of land, but I love my family and I love my Brian. So it'll be really wonderful. That's great. I will be delighted not to be here for a little bit. I really need a break. Yeah, you do. Many ways. Much deserved. For all of us, but yeah. Okay, let's vote. We have to vote on this, right? I'm going to vote aye. We have a second. Yes. Yes, Jennifer was second. Excellent. Lynn Breesmer. Yes. Andy Joe Haneke. Aye. And Jennifer Taub. Yes. All right. It's unanimous with one absent Jennifer. Yeah, no, I just wanted to express appreciation to Tracy Zafian for really careful reading, great suggestions. Yeah, she's a really thoughtful person on so many levels. That's great. He is. Where are we? The banner, I told you. So did we send, the flag policy has been reviewed, I believe by KP law, or have we recommended it to the council yet? I don't believe that we have. No. Yeah. Because there were questions at the last meeting. Okay. Do you remember what they, all right. So I'm wrong about that. So go ahead, Mandy. I think the question was, do we adopt the proposed flag policy before we can get answers to how to do the banner, public ways delegation, or do we try to do them together? Thank you. I think was the biggest question outstanding. And I thought GL wanted to try and do the two together. And then we had quite big questions about the street banners and how to word all of that given what all's there. Okay. So is that still what people would like to do? That seems logical. Okay. So if I'm looking through this right now, the agenda, we could go to public comment, but there are no public participants today. Not even, oh, no, I'm wrong. Julian Hines has come in. So I'm going to call for a period of public comment. And if anyone would like to make public comment for up to three minutes, they may raise their hand. Please don't say attendees names. No, I, even in a little bit that I, yeah, I'm sorry. Not seeing any hands raised. I'm going to call an end to public comment period. And unless the item is not anticipated by the chair, 48 hours in advance or discussion of future agenda items. One of the things that Michelle had brought forward when she was chair was an equity review process. And I'm going to be talking with the panel young about that and seeing where to go with that. So is there anything else that anyone can see that we should deal with before we adjourn the meeting? Mandy and then Jennifer. I apologize. Cause I had to take a phone call in the middle of the meeting. Did we just postpone the rules of procedure? Yeah. Okay. No, we didn't, but we are. Okay. And that's the same. No, there were a lot of different things and we were talking about adjusting areas and stuff like that. So I would like us to have enough time to read that. And I don't know if we can meet, but you were thinking about some of the same section movements that I was. So I don't know, I'll email you my thoughts about that. Jennifer. Yeah. Will you be back for the June 7th, GOL meeting? Yes. Okay. So I might just confer with you about the report to the council, but I'll email you about that. Yeah. I will have, I will be reading emails. I'm just not going to log in to the meetings when I'm traveling. We'll try not to bother you. Sorry, was there a discussion about changing meeting times while I was on the phone? I heard some, I was trying to sort of, okay. No, no, no. Okay. No. I apologize. No, for what? I ask you a question. All right. If there is nothing else that needs to come up, I am going to adjourn the meeting. Anthony, can you stay on and we can pick a date to meet? All right. See you. Okay. Bye-bye.