 Okay, I am calling the meeting of governance organization legislation to order It is 1035 and we are being recorded by Amherst media and somewhat melancholic gathering at least with the chair since Some of my members will no longer be with me after this meeting and so thank you to them very much and Take a quick look at the agenda We have item number two percent for art we have something we just received from the town manager, which actually from our legal counsel Now item number three has been removed from the agenda at the request of the sponsor Because they cannot be here today Any other questions of other items on the agenda I tend to go through it pretty much in the order It's here unless someone has Concerns of questions Some of these items we may decide to postpone but Hopefully you've had a chance to at least look at it ahead of time. I haven't heard anything from anyone So this is the order. I plan to do it in and the first item then for us this morning Would be review percent for art bylaw and we all have received this morning a document from the attorney Which has both a brief attorney? opinion and a series of edits to the document and So we as a committee need to make our decision right away Do you wish to spend the next? Whatever 20 whatever minutes gonna take to read this through quietly and then discuss it Or do you wish to postpone this to another meeting? It's a question Or do you want the chair to make the decision? Yes, I've read through KP laws revisions, and they seem reasonable and clear, and so I don't Probably doing it right now. Yeah, I really don't and then we would and then it would come to on the agenda of the 20 March Yes, I would Anyone else have any thoughts on this? I think personally I prefer having these things in advance We can actually read them and think about them But this has been on been on hold for a while so I'm willing to go ahead if the rest of you are willing to go ahead looks like I don't see any objections Okay, so I give people a few minutes including the chair to look at this in quiet And then we can open our discussion. We should now break to a commercial perhaps would be People doing okay. All right, okay What I think I'd like to do is look first at the If there are any comments about the edits or changes any concerns And then I'd like to look briefly at the note from the attorney So in place where I had just a question Hear from anyone else. There are any places where you feel I guess what I'm asking is where you feel that somehow the intent of the original sponsors or the sponsors has been Changed in some way that anyone seeing that Mandy So the only question I would have is the changing of I guess number on on that question is Under public art commissions responsibilities There was a lot of changing from soliciting proposals and establishing the budgets to advising the town manager for doing so You know instead of overseeing the partnership working with the manager to monitor I personally don't think it changes the intent of the by-law In terms of what the by-law would accomplish it does though change some of the responsibilities of the percent of the public art commission I mean, so there were three places where I saw sort of Substantive as opposed to clarifying changes and that was one of them is this revision had adds the town manager Into I counted six places where it did not previously Exist and so it definitely seems to empower the town manager and shift a lot of power away from the public art commission And so your question was of intent and I don't think that it necessarily Diminishes the intent of the by-law as a whole But I do wonder if it diminishes the intent of the public art commission as to what they saw as their role in the process and I would be curious to see their reaction to this because of some Decent power was taken away from them and transferred to the executive But I'm a little yeah, trying to sort out our own role here We normally get we are supposed to get this as we just have Once it's been Looked at by the attorney and also obviously after we've had a ideally a conversation with the sponsor though that hasn't happened a lot That's what ideally should happen so We now have the attorney opinion And they've made some changes from a we assume a legal perspective in terms of how Responsibilities and the law and so forth we assume this is being done from a strictly legal perspective and it does shift Some of the original responsibilities away from the public art Commission to the town manager and the assumption is that's done for legal purposes No, or And Or is it simple? Yeah, Evan So looking at this I'm having flashbacks from by-law review committee, right? because one of the challenges I think we faced within by-law review is Occasionally we would send things To the attorney for opinion and we'd get back similar to what we just got here Which were edits which were always beyond what we actually asked which is great We'd say hey Can you give us an opinion and they'd say oh we actually just edit a bunch of the wording the problem is those edits We're very rarely accompanied by explanation as to why those edits were made and so we'd end up going back to town Attorney saying well why did you do this and so the other if I could the other two places where I saw sort of substantive changes that I'm Curious about it one underfunding the inclusion of the shall be voted as a separate line item of the project Which was not previously in there Which is probably? Marginal, but I would also imagine once you separate out and have to vote on An item separately it makes it easier to vote that item down when it's not built into a bigger project So I have a feeling that's something that the proponents of this measure probably Wouldn't be too filled with but and then the other thing was under for forehead I think the most substantive revisions to which required a whole lot that I'm not even quite sure I understand But it seemed to be I mean it my initial brief read that the Artists might has to carry some type of insurance is that which which is it was nowhere in this before or I don't think and so And so my the point I'm getting around to is I don't know if those The reason that those two things were added in were to because it's not actionable without them Or because it just clarifies things but absent that rationale We just have to do this thing that you just did George Which is the attorney did this and they must have done it for a legal reason and therefore it must be right Or they did it in order to protect the town in other words There might also be a reasoning in other words Not necessarily a legal issue, but they might see a place where this exposes the town to risk and so they insert language to minimize or eliminate that risk or to shift that risk to some other party and That puts us in an interesting position because we don't represent the public art commission We work for and with the council and so I guess I'm wondering just in general How far we want to get into the weeds between The attorney who we pay to represent our interests and to look out for the well-being of the town Versus what a particular? Sponsor is is seeking I'm a little puzzled is or confused as to what our role should be I guess I would my initial thought would be We would defer to the attorney In these matters though. I agreed we have no explanation here but we would defer to the attorney with the assumption that what they're doing is due diligence and protecting the town from risk and minimizing its exposure And also obviously making sure nothing is illegal or violates any mass general law or any other sort of thing and The changes they make would be in that spirit That clearly are some edits that are simply meant for clarification purposes So how much do we want to get into this we could question a whole bunch of this goes back to the attorney The attorney will take a week two weeks. Who knows whatever to get back to us and we also have the public art commission, right? I Guess I'm asking all of you to what degree should we can we Get into this these sorts of levels of detail other than simply noting what has changed as far as we can see that in the Email to Paul. Yeah, the changes about adding town manager or emphasizing town manager is very clearly stated that it Is under the authority of the charter and that Responsibility can be delegated. So I don't think we have any issue with those I think it's sometimes hard. I I don't want this to fall into the sinkhole of KP laws timeframes Because people have been working on it for so long So I kind of agree that I trust the other edits that to being But sometimes I would love to be able to explain If a committee that says well, that's not I would like to be able to explain the reasoning So I was going to mention the same thing Pat just did about the email talking about the section 5 changes the ones on Responsibilities and I think what we could do is say, you know, that was changed was there if we wanted to vote we could vote Recognizing our vote or in the report could recognize that those changes have not been through and we do not know what the public art Commission believes about those changes, but that it's our Opinion that we're going to as a committee that we're going to accept the Attorneys recommendations on that and that the public art Commission that and maybe we send it to the public art Commission and say hey Just so you know if you want to give that if you want to put your opinion out on What your thoughts on these changes are send it to the council for consideration at the first reading Section 4 changes the ones to public art ownership I actually had no problem with that and I guess that's probably my experience with Insurance and legal stuff and all it I really do think it's just a protection of the town I read it as while the installation and creation is going into effect that the Artist must have insurance so that if something happens during the installation or as they're creating the art They can't sue the town. They've got insurance if the town gets sued. It's on them For example when I rented a house from Amherst College as part of housing We had to put on our homeowners insurance or renters insurance a rider that said they were an additional assured This is just a typical normal thing and it just protects other people So I don't have a problem with that and I don't think it changes at all the scope of what's being done I think it really is for the interest and we should accept our attorneys Thinking on trying to protect our town. That's what they're told to do the line item one that Evan mentioned is interesting because I do agree it changes it and it changes potential things I also though read it as a potential corollary to the Item that you know the last sentence of funding that we could by majority vote lower or eliminate the percentage for any qualifying project That you know We have the ability as a town council to remove a project from you know to sort of wave this by-law And so I saw that change to add the separate line item vote as sort of a corollary to Well, if we have a way to wave it by voting that line item down You're that's sort of the one of the ways to wave the by-law In a very obvious Manor because you voted that line item down. I do though agree with Evan that pulling it out as a line item Does then add more potential for it more frequently being voted down Evan yeah, so and just to clarify some of the statements earlier I'm actually I'm not I actually think that the edits I pointed out are good ideas like I actually support pulling it out And I think the insurance is a good idea, but I do think it's important to recognize Where there are substantive versus versus just clarifying edits and where there are areas where We might want to Put this where the sponsors of this legislation May throw up some red flags or concern on their end and that's not for us to Worry about necessarily, but I think it's important for us to note as we move this forward since we're the last step before it goes through the council That there are substantive changes that are gonna come out of what we recommend from this committee that the sponsors Perhaps have not yet seen even though I hope Paul is sending this to them again this Reveals to me the problem that we're gonna face repeatedly and is that we're given something and I'm not blaming anybody here I'm not blaming Paul not blaming the attorneys. They do what they do when they do it Paul gets it to a system as he can but We're now trying to sort through this At the head of an account of a full agenda I think in a normal situation I would prefer that we simply say okay We're gonna digest this and at our next meeting we will talk about We've embarked on this we're gonna pursue it to the end I think but this is something that bothers me But from the other side we get pressure from counselors and from sponsors saying come on come on come on Get this done get this done But in order for us to do our job Other than just to be a rubber stamp We really do need to have some time to look at a document and examine it and think about it Before we come in here and actually talk for the public here. We're basically doing it on the fly It also seems to me and I'm just speaking for myself obviously that that When we get legal review The default position it seems for me would be that the attorneys are paid by the town to look out for the interests of the town and so we assume that the kinds of changes they're making are made with the town's interests in mind and We would not normally question that on the other hand If we do have questions, what do we do? I guess we then have to say we have to hold on this We have to go back to the attorney for clarification and that's certainly within our right And I'm not saying we should never do it and maybe we'll do it in this case But again, it adds more time to the process and so to concerns The fact that we get this at the last minute and now we're trying to scramble to do a decent job and Secondly, if we do have concerns and problems It seems legitimate for us to go back to the attorney, but that's going to make this take longer And maybe the answer to that is it takes as long as it takes We have a member I'm sorry a member from the public Yeah, soon to be I was a member of the ad hoc committee and that developed the bylaw and the ad hoc committee did not dissolve it Adjourned its last meeting without moving to dissolve because it recognized that there was a possibility that Amendments might be proposed from any source and the ad hoc committee Decided to stay in existence. I just wanted to share that. Okay, so It goes back to the ad hoc committee Then the ad hoc committee maybe says we want to change X Y and Z Then it comes back to us then it goes back to the attorney To get a feeling like this is this right, but maybe that's just the way this is going to work that isn't there a way of Recommending this to the council with the proviso that the Percenture art ad committee might have changes or something Something more I was gonna say something similar actually We are the last review before it goes to council that doesn't mean though that other Committees can weigh in on the language we forward So I would say if this is the language we want to forward we can vote on this language and say This is the language we deem clear consistent and actionable and wise to adopt or whatever because of all the things that George has been mentioning about taking attorney thing, but you can also then contact the percent for art At hot committee you can contact public arts commission and say this is the language we're forwarding We know it's different from what percent for art Proposed when it comes to the council maybe percent for it wants to meet and discuss and have a recommendation on this for the councils to say whether they Agree with those changes or would like additional changes and then it's at the council for a first reading to discuss those potential Changes that potentially avoids this back and forth through different things But does enable the council to have the opinion of say the Public Arts Commission on their changed duties Actually, I don't agree. I think it should go to us. We do our job and then it should go to the other parties And as many said at that point it's going to be between them And at that point any changes that will take place Including if the council decides it wants a further legal review But it's a council decision at that point once we have if we do if we say this is this is we're going to declare this clear Consistent actionable with the note that that Mandy's mentioned and then at that point Anyone else can weigh in but it is the console That makes sense to me Now if we do have problems with this and that's a certain possibility in other words if we're looking at this and again That's why I wish we had more time but if we're looking at this and serious issues arise as to whether we feel this is Changing the actual content in some way Or whatever reason or we just want more clarity for whatever reason We are certainly certainly within our right to simply say we're not going to vote on this We're going to send it back to the attorney through Paul and ask for clarification or whatever And so any one of you should feel free if you feel strongly that there is an issue here That we would have to say we can't vote At this point because we have some we need clarification But if we do feel it's clear consistent actionable as it stated with these edits And I think Mandy's given us a path forward We can have a vote assuming the vote is affirmative it goes then to the council and at that point It's between the council and whoever wants to weigh in That makes sense So I Had read this by law before I didn't see anything that threw up my red flags in my ill-informed initial reading of it We have attorney stuff. I think it's ready to be sent to the council My concern remains and this is not just about this But this is about our relationship with town attorney because this was a consistent problem in Baila review, which is When recommending substantive changes we need an explanation because my concern is if Public art commission or percent for our ad hoc committee or any individual who supports this Comes to the council when it's before the council and says I don't like this change that was made And I want someone to offer an amendment to change it And a counselor Doesn't necessarily know why something was changed They may offer an amendment that changes the in during the meeting that changes the by-law Not just this by love of any by-law in in a way that's problematic. And so I Think everyone explained why we think these changes were made and they make sense but we're trying to think about what Lauren's intent was and We're probably right because it's logical, but maybe not and so it would just be nice To be able if someone comes and says I don't like this change and I want to make an amendment It'd be nice to say no no no we have from the attorney This amendment was made because it protects the town from liability or or XYZ and so I think this is partly about this But I also think as I depart this committee one of the things I would say given my experience on while our review is we need to Maybe have a conversation with the town manager about how we ask for town attorney opinion and say if you're giving us edits and those edits Go beyond just clarification or wordsmithing We need explanations Because we shouldn't have to guess why they did something and I will say there was actually Was one instance in by-law review with the attorney did something like this and we weren't sure why and when we asked and The attorneys reason came back. We realized it was because there was some information that she was missing and actually what she was recommending was wrong Had to do with the the revolving fund and so had we actually taken her advice It would have actually created a big problem, but it's just and so I'm worried about you're saying well This is the expert opinion without knowing the explanation. So I think going forward Going forward we need to ask for explanations when edits are given. We can't just take them At that but all of that said I moved to declare the percent for art by-law clear consistent and actionable As presented by the attorney as presented by the attorney I moved to declare the percent for art by-law clear consistent and actionable as presented by the attorney town attorney Pat seconded Evan has made the motion further discussion Try and sum up In my own mind the discussion but any further discussion comments thoughts We're going to I'm not sure how I'm gonna vote yet Partly because I do feel strongly that This is not the way we should do things And maybe I'll cast the negative vote just so that I can have a chance to make that point I'm still thinking out loud here, but I feel strongly that We're getting this kind of detailed attorney opinion, which we value great deal I mean, this is this is what we want and this is what they are supposed to do But when it comes to us on the morning of our meeting it makes it very difficult for us to do our job and I have three very bright colleagues, but That it's just it's difficult and makes me uncomfortable Having said that my presumption is that when this is done by the town attorney We as a committee would tend to defer to the town attorney in terms of their Job of protecting the town and looking out for the town's best interest. It is not our job I don't think to be a advocate for the sponsor our job is to declare clear consistent actionable and To trust in general that the town attorney in doing their due diligence is doing it from the perspective of protecting the town's interests Nonetheless, we've also agreed that if there are places where in reading Assuming the time to read with care reading the document and the edits with care. We have places where we are Not satisfied or we have serious questions. It is perfectly within our right and we should put everything on hold and go back to the attorney for Explanation clarification or whatever what I'm hearing from my colleagues this morning is that based on their reading of this this morning Which is not an ideal situation. They're willing to accept this edits these edits as clear consistent actionable and they do not have Any serious reservations they wish to send back to the attorney for more clarification. So we are obviously ready to proceed What I'm hearing from my colleagues also is that I should have a conversation with the town manager sooner rather than later about this whole process and Evan's request that changes to the grief possible come with some explanation Obviously, they're wordsmithing and editing changes There's no reason to explain those and that probably is the bulk of what is in here But there are clearly some places where the changes are probably due to protecting the town's interests Providing the town with some flexibility And to again to protect its financial interests And so it shouldn't require a great deal of comment by the attorney But some kind of comment would be helpful and that's something that I'm hearing from Evan I assume from my colleagues as well that I should pursue with Paul All right Any other thoughts Mandy? I just want to Ask that if we vote on this to which if it's a positive vote it would get forwarded to the council that the chair Contact the percent for our ad hoc committee and maybe even the public arts commission Although I know the chair of the public arts commission is on that ad hoc committee for them the town attorney's language and specifically say If you want, you know, you know sort of specifically mentioned that they would be welcome to present or add a reporter memo to a Council agenda, we don't know we can assume this would end up on next meeting's agenda Obviously until agenda setting and it's set we don't know But I think that's the president's desire if possible as soon as we're out To do it, but so that that comes from this committee as that respect of recognizing We know this is not what you presented and so we're gonna give you that opportunity to talk to the council about that So you're asking me to reach out to public art commission and the chair of the ad hoc committee to notify them of these changes and It seems that I should also send them a Copy of what we have approved Correct Not rely or ask the town manager to do but I can send them a copy What about the lawyer's opinion should I forward them? I mean Paula said I can forward it to anyone I wish The whole forward the email. Okay So and forward them the email and invite them if they wish to attend or to comment to Okay Anything else any other thoughts comments because we have a motion in front of us. It's been seconded So I'm gonna call the question all those In favor, please raise your hand and say I you have three in favor All those opposed Please raise your hand and say There are no abstentions so the vote is three to one with one absent and I Will explain that's right. I will explain my vote in council and That's yeah, okay The next item on the agenda if we're ready to move on is item four of this is I'm gonna turn to Mandy for this, but we have the interim affordable housing policy resolution. It should be in your packet and Mandy I'm gonna turn to you to take the lead on this so before I take the lead I just want to mention that I will be leaving this meeting in about 15 minutes to go to a meeting as vice president on This is news. So yeah, I've been asked to attend on the co vid on the co vid thing I got an email asking me to attend So I just wanted to let you know I would be leaving at 1130 to go up one floor to attend as vice president a Meeting on the co vid issue in 15 minutes in 15 minutes But I thought I'd let that out there Because that leaves you with a minimum of three So yes, this this resolution was was adopted by the town Seat well was recommended by the Community resources committee by a vote of I think it was four to one. I'm not three to one I think we had five members there at the time I Believe that is the vote, right? Yeah, I should just look it up and since it is now being sponsored by the CRC It is in front of GL. I forwarded it to GL for that reason the the vote was Where's my vote four to one? To to recommend this and so it's in front of us It is intended to be an interim affordable housing policy as the title is for the purposes of while CRC works on drafting and crafting and Housing policy per the referral to at least set forth Something from the council supporting the affordable housing portion of what the town has been doing All right Thoughts for my colleagues about this in terms of clarity Consistency and action ability. I mean this is written by the master of clarity Consistency and action of us are on the other committee. So I think I Have no Concerns I'm prepared to accept the motion. I move to declare the The title right the resolution adopting an interim affordable housing policy as Sponsored by CRC clear consistent and actionable There's a second second. All right a grudging second from Evan So we have a motion in front of us. It's been seconded Any further discussion for the public? I'm gonna call the question all those in favor, please signify by raising your hand and saying hi Hi So it's four zero with one absent Very good Rule of procedures eight point two eight point six. Do we need both? this was raised at the last meeting and The pollinator has been stricken from the agenda the sponsor has asked that that be done his sponsor He's not able to be present today Or sponsors Rop 8.2 8.6. I looked at this. I don't know if anyone else had a chance to I know Mandy's looked at it They seem to be identical the only thing I could find different was that at one point Review by town attorney is mentioned From under bylaws and that I don't think was mentioned 8.2. Maybe I missed it But otherwise I could not see why these are both here But is there a reason yes, so I haven't looked at this closely, but my memory of these two rules is that One of them is for automatic referral So that we don't have to vote in the council to refer things like bylaws to go well And then the other thing restricts the council's ability to act on something Before it's been considered by a particular body and so they they aren't duplicate it They serve very different purposes one says we don't have to vote before we send it to a body And the other says the council can't vote until it's been considered by that body They could perhaps be combined Into one rule, but I don't think it's a situation where we can say we only need one or the other Or we could get rid of it because I think if my memory and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong of these Two rules serves me they serve two very different purposes Mani So yeah, I'm the one that brought this up and then I started thinking and they do kind of serve two different purposes I guess one of my thoughts Personally was potentially specifically to the resolutions Proclamations and commemorations which I think we added in To consideration of 8.6 at one point not I'm not sure it was originally there I think we added it in and now as we get to these resolutions that are yearly I'm wondering if GOL If you know we just had the Tibet one that does did change substantially But had it not changed if really the only change was the date of the ceremony Does it really every year need to come back to GOL and so that was where I was thinking like and if it doesn't Then 8.2 says it's technically referred to us And so we have to act on it eight points that says we have to act with it So then we're almost We've a satisfied 8.2, but then it sits in GOL without it coming out or it's just this weird You would have to Vote to wave that rule in order to act on it without GOL acting But does GOL really need to see it so that that was though So maybe it's more specific to resolutions proclamations and commemorations than the whole rule in the end Mm-hmm so if the issue is that Admittedly narrow situation I'm wondering if instead of trying to address it through the town council rules of procedure It could be addressed by a GOL policy that just says For annual resolutions where there is no change except for the dates GOL automatically Declare you think there's something that GOL could do which is to say it gets automatically referred and it could be something where GOL could also Delegate the responsibility to the chair to say for annual resolutions where the only changes the date It's automatically referred to GOL and the chair Can you like I think instead of trying to change the rule which is complicated it could be solved in here I kind of like Evan suggestion, you know because because that was where I was thinking about it, you know And and we've had this issue. We potentially had it with about that one was changed But sometimes they don't come but they're they're yearly and do we really need to so maybe just delegating as a GOL council committee that authority to the chair to say hey if it is an annual resolution and the chair doesn't see any Changes the chair can push it back as consistent and actionable Thinking about the Sanctuary Lucio Perez is sanctuary thing where we did it was rewritten by the original sponsor the minister and There were issues that we had to change in that because his name was listed etc. Etc. So But it's probably gonna be yearly since there doesn't seem to be a lot of hope So that I hmm, but I think the chair would have caught that So you could I mean you could simply say where there's no change, but dates and what minor Matt do we want to or do you just want to make it just dates because otherwise any other change Technically would send it back to send to the full GOL So if the minister's name changes or you know some other minor change or the location changes or whatever It doesn't affect in any way the content or intent of the document it just So is there some way to word that that we'd be comfortable with other or do you want to just leave it at dates? I was gonna say maybe for annual resolutions or annual resolutions proclamations commemorations and citations changes that are done due to the annual nature of The document which could be a minister's name because it's annual and at some point that minister changes names, you know Or the date or the location of town hall, you know the time But maybe it's changes due to the annual nature might Sufficiently cover that We had this discussion last time this is item number six continued discussion rule procedures 8.4 should it be eliminated or revised Are there any further thoughts on this? Do you wish to take it up at greater length now? Counselor Evan, but Anyone I would defer to Evan and Pat since they are no Evan since Evan is with one leaving our committee that is here And it was partially his request partially mine too, so So I think where we left last time was a fairly Divided committee some members feeling like we should eliminate it some members feeling as though we should keep it and other members feeling Is that we should modify it? I think my stance now is the same place as it was last meeting which was keep 8.4 But instead of carving out exceptions specifying for which types of measures it makes sense to maintain that rule That said I have not in the interim between the two meetings given any thought to which things Would fall in that list and so I'm not prepared to offer revised language I Also see Mandy Joe ready to leave. I also wonder if perhaps Given The division and I'm not using division and negative literal division on this committee over this issue If perhaps it makes sense to hold off to the next meeting where there'll be two new members One of which has a lot of experience running our meetings And preparing these agendas and one of which has extensive experience in governance Those new ideas might help the discussion because I worry if we try and continue now We just we end at the same stalemate that we've had Any other thoughts on this Item 7 rule procedure 10.8 counselors is non-voting liaison should we add a bullet? That GOL shall annually I assume it we met GOL shall annually review the list of committees Which are assigned liaisons is that something that people have thoughts on that? I think it that when I read it first or when it was presented first it was the president Believer well, maybe it's just the council should review Seems to me that if there's gonna review it should be by GOL And then it just goes to the council with our suggestions with our recommendations I guess there's two questions one should there be an annual review and two who should do it I Guess three. I should have then go into the rules of procedure should we add a item? I think it'd be item M. I think Yeah Thoughts on that? Should there be an annual review? So I agree there should be an annual review. All right. There are two votes for now Anyone else any thoughts two and a half votes for a review, so okay Two and three quarters, okay, there should be an annual review. So I don't do it item K Says not all town multiple member bodies will have liaisons the council shall maintain a priority list of bodies Most likely to propose measures to the council the president shall send a list of all liaisons to all town multiple member bodies After each annual reorganization bodies without a current liaison may ask the council to assign one subject to availability And then L is a sign Lee indicate preferences annually So somewhere in the maybe it's not an added M. Maybe it's part of K The council maintains a priority list of bodies most likely to propose measures to the council Which shall be reviewed annually by GOL Something like that just add that phrase right into K I'm wondering Who on the council would actually maintain a priority list of bodies? I assume the president we're really saying the president's gonna do that. We certainly not gonna do that as a body So We would be I mean isn't the fact that we voted those nine kind of our priority list of bodies But it's who's gonna change that in a year from now or six nine months whenever it is from now I find it hard to believe that Someone or someone's is going to go through and come up with a new list of priority committees We're just gonna start with I mean we're looking for someone to kind of do that Right and come to the council with okay here than the bodies that we have had liaisons on and We're recommending that X Y Z. I Think the vice president of the council should do it and you know in a certain way. I'm not kidding Mm-hmm because it does seem to me that there needs to be some place if if a liaison is on a committee And realizes that you know this committee really doesn't need a liaison or oh my god. I went to a couple of meetings of a committee I'm not a liaison poor and you know there are things times. We need to discuss committees I think there needs to be somebody to gather that information and it seems like the Vice president could do that because So you're suggesting perhaps instead of the council shall maintain you could well, I don't know it should be the council Through the yeah, and I'm not No, no, no, I understand you so the council through the vice president shall maintain a party listed bodies most likely proposed measure to the council and This list shall be reviewed annually by GOL It could be that a Committee says oh my god, we don't have a liaison. We really need one You know, yeah, no, we would like to have that right through the VP Any thoughts on that suggestion? Yes, I'm fine with it My only thought is I think somewhere in the other part of the rules We have duties of president and vice president if we add this specifically in I would probably recommend Throwing it into the duties of the vice president section earlier on too Yes, so that was a really interesting suggestion and I wouldn't have thought of Delegating to the vice president So I'm not sure how I feel about it yet because I haven't had time to think about it I do have some concerns About how that might be perceived Delegating it to one person if there's the idea that the vice president taking any current Or potential future vice president out of it if it would just be seen as the vice presidents list of favorite committees that they want and so and I speak of this Not out of any distrust for a committee and I don't share these like the president vice president have too much power type of things But I speak of it as someone who is involved In the OCA discussion to come up with the list that we had and I think that was it wasn't a very long discussion We actually did it in about 45 minutes, which is short for any committee but it was really useful because for instance, I Personally and it's in the minutes in the video. I personally didn't think the disability access advisory committee should have a liaison I argued against that The two other people involved that discussion felt it should and so they argued so it ended up on the list And that was actually one of the more popular ones that people wanted to be a liaison to but if I was the vice president I would have never recommended that as a committee to have a disability act Ladies and so I'm wondering if there's a benefit in having a committee have that discussion to have those multiple Perspectives. Yeah, I think yeah, I hear what you're saying about a committee and the committee needing to have the discussion I think that's accurate. I guess when I was thinking about having the vice president hold that list as Not as that person making the decisions But bringing that was then forward to the council But it may just be simpler to keep it in GLL In other words, the list is kept right the list is kept by the council and it's decided every year as we just did recently And that's really the list it doesn't require anyone to do anything and At the end of the near in November December GL would be assumed to automatically review that list and Make any recommendations it's off it So maybe we should just have the council shall maintain a priority list of bodies most likely proposed measures to the council Which list shall be reviewed annually annually by GLL? I mean the the other option is if we're getting hung up on the word maintain and who maintains that list It could be the council shall annually produce a priority list So every year the council has to create a list And of course the council would likely delegate that to a committee like the GLL But instead of being like who's who's holding that list. It's just no every year. We propose a list Again, I won't do too much time on this but we could work Smith it and then we have a Recommendation to change Item K under 10.8 With the intention of ensuring that it does get reviewed which seems like a good thing to do GL would seem to be the natural body to do so and maybe also a slight wording change just to clarify That the council as you said Evan creates How would you again the council shall? Either how did you put it? Produce shall produce okay Produce a pretty list of bodies, so we change maintain to produce and then insert which list shall be reviewed annually by GLL If my colleagues are satisfied with that and I'm not saying you are but if you if you are We could proceed to a vote Especially since two of our colleagues aren't here we can just ram this through now So I'm willing to entertain a motion the motion would be to the effect That we would amend item K of Rules of procedure 10.8 Counselors is not voting liaisons the second sentence shall now read The council Shall produce a Priority list of bodies most likely to propose measures to the council Which list shall be reviewed annually by GL any that's the Sorry, I want to make a change to that language actually because I'm remembering us that I Suggested a change either in OCA or in the council So the list we ended up with was not a priority list of bodies most likely to propose measures to the council and in fact Many of the committees we proposed for liaisons don't ever propose measures to the council and so it should actually be a Priority list of bodies that should have liaisons or something like because it's not that we didn't actually do this What we did was we produced a priority list of bodies that we believe should have council liaisons And so the language should reflect that Apologize to the clerk and to the note taker We're going to try and wordsmith this one last time If I were you I'd wait if we're writing anything till I've said it about three times The council shall produce a list of bodies Which the council believes and we don't write anything yet which the council believes Can't just be as simple as the council shall produce a priority list of bodies for Council liaisons, I mean Yeah, that's for account What do you know you're better at this than we are? I'm not sure that that's true Priority list of bodies to be assigned council liaisons You are better to be assigned council liaisons Which list shall be this part I have so I'm comfortable here which list shall be reviewed annually by GOL So I'm going to ask the clerk with her indulgence to read back The proposed motion if she can And we will help her The council shall produce a priority list of bodies to be assigned council liaisons Which list shall be reviewed annually by the GOL? So that's the change in language And the motion would be that's all right. That's all right. This is the motion would be to amend Item K of rule of procedure ten point eight Counselors as non-voting liaisons So I basically to amend the second sentence So I think you want to give this a try and if go ahead and if I mess it up with someone Okay, so I moved to amend Rule ten point eight K To strike the sentence the council shall maintain a priority list of bodies most likely to propose measures to the council and Replace it with the council shall produce a priority list of bodies to be assigned Council liaisons which list shall be reviewed annually by GOL Make sure we're on the same page. So when you're ready go ahead No, um, you want to repeat what if he can repeat the motion again? Okay, go ahead. Thank you Evan. I move to a pen. I move to amend Rules of procedure rule ten point eight K To strike the sentence the council shall maintain a priority list of bodies most likely to propose measures to the council and Replace it with The council shall produce a priority list of bodies to be assigned council liaisons Which list shall be annually reviewed by GOL? So we have a motion before us and it has been seconded enthusiastically by Pat I have nothing further to say So I'm going to call the question all those in favor of the motion, please signify by raising your hands and say aye There are not not opposed so with the vote is three in favor not opposed to absent Okay And hopefully I remind myself that we did that just getting to all for this ten point eight Bear with me for a second ten point eight Okay, amendment Item eight is about consent agendas and this was something I believe Mandy brought up last time Your intrepid chair went out and spent hours of research and found An interesting item on consent agendas, but it strikes me with only three members present One of whom is tragically going off to another committee and leaving all his knowledge and expertise taking it with him This probably should be left for another day Unless someone's had a chance to look at it and has some thoughts about it. It I thought it would be Interesting discussion to I think the issue was raised to what degree do we need or should we introduce into the rules of procedure? Specific items about consent agendas we are using them and we're going to continue to use them and maybe that's sufficient But the suggestion was there might be a place for that in the rules procedure and that discussion Perhaps would be more fruitful It does seem worthwhile having it in rules and procedures I don't have it now I can be happy to have it Okay, fine. I agree with you that I think given the current situation with the change in membership and Missing two members. That's something we should leave for next time We do have to Emphasize the need for counselors to read the items in the consent agenda So that we can utilize it. There's only so much the rules of procedure can do Human nature is beyond its powers Item nine discussion of how we proceed with bylaws of future consideration referred to the committee by the council Evan has done a wonderful job producing a document for us and I Have done nothing with it nor have we as a committee Evan is leaving us as of today after today I'm looking for suggestions advice one thought I had a long time ago when we first talked about this Was that the chair would certainly need or would probably solicit help in other words particular items would be Assigned to members of the committee to prepare for the committee Rather than leave it up to the chair alone to present these things though the chair certainly has a major role to play So if we look at priority one and we have a host of items here when I'm envisioning not at this meeting Obviously since only two members are going to continue Would be to I'm suggesting this for your thoughts and input Assigning some or all of these to particular members with the thought that they would come back at the next meeting or some future meeting prepared to present it to the whole body is that Allowable it's that violate some arcane notion of Open meeting open meeting law Yeah, in other words, I would my I'm thinking is I would say Evan you take 2.4 I'll do 3 6 3 7 you do 3 15 3 16 and then your job is to go off and just research it and See what problems there are and then just present it to your colleagues for the discussion So in each item, I would then turn to whoever it was and say, okay take us through this Evan So if I could just speak to this document that I created briefly So I tried my best to group different things into three priority groups Which you've read the purpose of public number one is they're simple They can be done in my opinion very quickly to is they're not so simple But we should probably try to do them and three is they're not so simple and there's really no rush on them The ones in priority number one I don't even think require the level of effort that you just described if you read through the list half of them are Literally just we need to ask town attorney's opinion So so those I think the chair could take So because some of them are literally just we need more guidance from town attorney on this Others I think honestly you I think this entire priority one Unless you could put on one GOL agenda and complete with time to spare because some of them so the zero energy town buildings It's just there's a definition that needs to be fixed. It's not substantive But there was some concern because that was such a hotly contested bylaw that by our view committee didn't want to touch it, right? things like The personnel bylaw and human rights and human rights and human rights commissions thing The only thing between that was that our sort of equal opportunity Language was different between the two and to me that's as easy as sending a question to Paul to relay to Evelyn What's the most up-to-date equal opportunity language the town uses and we should just insert that into bylaws? Affordable housing trust that's literally we just have to tell the town manager to file With the register of deeds, which maybe he's already done Right 3.31 is we have to send it to concom. So I actually think that How probably have more than half of priority one are either just needs to be communicated or asked the town manager the town attorney Or sent to someone else so that doesn't even require people to do anything other than the chair And then others could probably be just quickly fixed on an agenda So if you're going to assign out once it would be the priority two ones because those are the ones that Should be done, but it's going to take a little bit more time So yeah, my recommendation to the chair is to go through priority one and just do the ones Just do the ones that are inquiries to town attorney and I'd be if there's any confusion about what they are right you can do that I'm no longer a member of this committee. So there's none quorum Things or any of that and then the rest of them could literally just be put on one agenda and I think done pretty quickly With priority three any thoughts on that how that might be handled Or maybe leave that for the committee Yeah, I think I think get through my personal opinion on this is get through one and two first And then if this committee all of a sudden finds itself with a little bit of extra capacity or downtime And it might you know, maybe over the summer something Then the ones on three are Worth looking at the other side of this is that some of these you might want to also refer All of these are referred to go well and in a lot of ways that makes sense But other of these you might want to actually work in the same way that CRC just jettisoned a bunch of things to TSO Thanks You might want to do the same so regulations relating to animals. I don't actually remember exactly What that was but it was literally there were regularly there's a problem That doesn't currently exist but could exist in the future I almost want to say it has to do with like people keeping pet pigs or something like it was something sort of obscure But it doesn't necessarily maybe doesn't make sense for this body to it the God I'm not articulating well what needs to be done is actual new regulations be promulgated and It might not make sense for GL to do that might make sense for GL to look at that and go, huh? How we enforce animal regulations? Unfortunately is really a TSO thing because and so maybe we send that to TSO to work with Town staff to come up with new regulations So I think on the other thing you're gonna find with both I think two and three is there might be occasions where you go well Do I shouldn't be doing this anyway? Let's send it and the geo will's job will be sending it to the relevant committee Public ways requests which require town council approval Just again, there are only three of us one of us is going to be gone next time But let me just say a few things briefly Both for myself to try and articulate it I'm had another discussion with with the town manager Proposal that we've gone through once largely with Mandy's edits is a proposal that Public ways requests all get funneled Through the town manager's office that that's the initial point of contact That's not the only way things could be done And so we might want to at some point consider alternatives to that but For instance, you could have a dedicated subcommittee who deals with this some towns or cities have that they have a Parking body that deals with all these kinds of issues That may be beyond both our capacity and given all the other things we're trying to do It might be simpler to keep to the system that we have at the moment The concern that Paul expressed and that I've expressed in some of my written comments to you in the memos I sent is what happens when someone brings a public ways request to the town manager and He sends it on to staff or whatever and they decide that this is doesn't merit any change or doesn't marry any kind of positive response and What I thought Was that that's then there's a role there for the district representatives But another thought came to me and also to Paul that this could also be a place for TSO Not to give them yet more work to do but we did say that transportation and also parking falls within their Ambit so what I'm really what I'm hoping we're not going to do this today It's taking a lot longer than I thought it would maybe it'll take a lot longer still But the thought was we would finally produce a document kind of an FAQ as we've done for other kinds of things That could be put on the town website So that people who do have questions about this could go there and we tell them what the procedures are And what we're trying to do at least in my understanding as a committee has come up with some Version of that document Perhaps to be ultimately vetted by the council, but maybe not but whatever a document that basically says okay This is the procedures that should be followed and at the moment the understanding is that you would you would begin by going to town hall And you would say I've got this this problem I've got this issue and I want the town to do something about it You could come with you know a whole bunch of people you could come with a you know Or by yourself however you want to do it and then it goes to the town process And if it does eventually reach the point where the town says okay We're going to propose a change and it does involve the council as keepers in the public way Then there are steps that we we just followed for Lincoln Avenue that would be part of that process if It's decided by it through the town hall process that this doesn't merit any kind of change or Or anyway the the the person who's come is not satisfied because nothing happens or whatever The question becomes what happens next and one suggestion just to be put out here is that they could go to TSO and make their case to TSO and TSO would listen and It's then if TSO felt there was some merit they could go back to they could actually go to the council and request a public hearing Anyway, the thought was the TSO could serve as a kind of Release valve or escape valve for those situations, which may be very rare But those situations where someone has asked for a change to the public way and has felt right there wrongly that nothing's happened TSO could serve that function. So part of this process could be you know If there is no resolution or if you do not get Satisfaction and you still feel that you have a case Your recourse is not to get 500 whatever Which seems to me just silly but that you can go to TSO and ask them ask to be put on their agenda and You could make your case before that so That's where we stand at the moment And I could use input either in written form or right now certainly we have a few minutes Do you are you comfortable with the idea of basically everything initially going through town hall? Or would you prefer that we begin to think about a way that some other body would take these things on? and secondly if there is an impasse if the Individual making request feels like nothing has happened or nothing is happening Should we provide some kind of Process One of the things that I think is that Both Town managers should be notified if a resident has a complaint or concern and their district Representatives should be Notified so that we have some chance to check in with Paul if we need to or if there is a Resident contacts us later. We we've already started to look at it I do think this belongs in TSO no no teasing or anything else and I just my concern always is while residents bring very important Perspectives they're not always Right on or the ones that we should follow right and so I Just feel I'm concerned literally for the health of TSO A long term is if they're receiving all residents dissatisfaction and With that said there are some serious dissatisfactions that don't get addressed You know the difference between Lincoln Avenue and how it's treated and how Stanley Street has been treated around speed, you know, so They're really needs TSO really needs to create a policy and Equity needs to be part of that policy So I've heard two things Pat just for my own sake one is that if I hear you correctly when When someone does come to Paul and says I got a problem on X Street or whatever I want, you know parking whatever you would ask Paul or expect Paul to Just notify as a matter of course the two district representatives in their district just to let them know that so-and-so came to me and with this complaint and Or at least I'm taking an under advisement in other words You want him to do this initially in other words one of the things he normally when someone comes to him and They speak to him or somehow it's communicated to him that he would Ask them or find out what district they're in and then notify the district rep right from the start Or are you thinking that once a decision has been made because often there is no decision made It just is let to die because it's considered to be frivolous or just they just don't know what to do with it And nothing's come of it and right really didn't know anything about it so I think initially when Paul gets something or Or it or somehow residents need to be encouraged to contact both Simultaneously the town manager and their district I'd be sympathetic with the suggestion that says that Paul when you do have these conversations When it comes to you It should be a matter of course that you always say have you contacted your district rep And so rather than making it on him We would simply expect him to always mention to people that they should reach out to the Okay, that seems to be reasonable As opposed to saying Paul every time somebody calls your phone or whatever and you hear about a complaint You have to immediately or within the next 24 hours than an email to whoever So the assumption would be that you would always say have you spoken to your reps? You should Okay All right I hear your point about equity between districts. I think that's something that's going to come up before tsl And certainly link and avenue provide a kind of focus for that. I'm not sure at the moment It's just my ignorance. I'm speaking just personally I'm not convinced that there is a problem But clearly there's a perception that there is and it seems tsl is a place where that discussion should be at least start I wasn't comfortable with it at the council meeting because I felt that there was a lot of Yeah, I would be much more comfortable hearing at it at the committee level because I think there's a chance to really dig into the details At the council level, I felt that grenades were being locked But I kept my mouth shut But I hear you with the idea No, not just you I was being hurled by a couple of people and It may maybe they're appropriate, but But I hear the issue is there. I think it needs to be addressed tso is a place to address it Have any thoughts to this conversation before you leave us and sail off into the distance Well, I'll be sailing off into tso So I won't be leaving this conversation It this does belong in tso and part of the reason we created tso and I know one of your reasons for for supporting tso was it would be um I don't want to use the word dumping ground for parking complaints, but um, but certainly it's it's it's a venue For people to express their concerns and frustrations about parking in public ways I I think the first big challenge for tso Will be to figure out how to do that And so I I actually wonder at this point given that this body has sort of struggled with this for so long if it makes sense to Say to tso here's what we've come up with but much of this is now in your purview How do you want to handle it? um I feel bad for the two members of this committee who have Shuggled with it on this committee who also serve on tso um But I do think that that's going to be actually I think you said something earlier, which was do we send them to tso? I don't think we need to send them to tso I think once people know tso exists the people who would have come forward are going to go there anyway And give public comment right once once people see that tso is involved with this Whether or not there's a formal process that says oh, you didn't get you away I'm sure a board of that differently, but now you go to tso Um, I think if people know tso exists, they're going to do it Anyway, and so I actually kind of think the onus now is on tso to figure out how to handle those to distinguish I think between Things that maybe need to happen and things that don't to ensure equity um, and and honestly also, I think one of the benefits District it's hard as a district counselor To say no to your constituents, right? I mean, I think we've all faced this my I've had constituents Who have come forward with parking issues that I don't think are valid and it's and it's it's difficult to say to your constituent I don't think this opinion is valid and i'm not going to pursue it, right? And I think the value of the committee is that because it's five members Granted district three is overly represented on tso um But it also includes an at-large counselor and there will always be a mix And so that that the conversation that we kept hearing at the council of them We've been hearing is how come they're getting this focus when there's problems in my district too And I think forcing that conversation at a committee level where you have different representatives Forces a more holistic view that can be really useful But I don't think it's on us to decide what that looks like for tso. I think tso has to figure it out I I do want to say that one of the important things about having the public hearing on Lincoln was We realize we do make Or have been as a town making decisions on individual streets And we can't do that. We really have to make we have to look at the impact of a decision on other streets nearby The equity issue you once said something about this isn't competing districts And I got something and you didn't get and I'm not bringing forward Stanley street as my district didn't get this I'm bringing it forward because it happens to be one. I know But the issues of equity and in in terms of how north amherst has been taken care of by dpw, etc Or decisions regarding Streets and and byways there Compared to amity street area compared to You know The voice keep the voices keep saying we're not doing this fairly. So it really does become important To address equity and not slip it under the rug because really everybody is getting what they need because that's not true in this town One last quick question Would you the two of you? Hope one day to see on the town council website a policy statement on Public ways process. So someone some citizen would click on the town council website And there would be a link that would spell out The steps broadly speaking that and and the various Ways they could access Or address issues That's what I have been trying to Create I hear that Maybe it makes sense now to to move that over to TSO. I really don't care who creates it But I do think we should create it, but I'm wondering if you agree. Do you think that Because I'm hearing from Evan. Maybe we should kind of leave it You know not get too Specific and I'm really thinking I want it to be very specific. So someone could read that and see You know, whether they know this or not, they could go there and it would say if you don't get satisfaction Or how phrase it however you like In a nice politic way You do have the option of x y and z one of those options would be to get however I can never remember the number signatures and we assume very few people would pursue that option But we'd list it but one of them would be you could Bring your your Concern to the town services and outreach committee I'm just asking and you may not want to say or you might want to figure some some more Would that be for me that would be a happy day? And I know the town clerk Would would would be happy to because she loves to put these policies up and so on but working with her We would create this link where you would get this all in lack of way Any thoughts on that at all or no because that's what I've been trying to do and I will continue to try to do With this committee and or TSO But I'm going to stop doing it if I get a sense that people would prefer that really it's not appropriate or they just don't want it I I think the more information that can be on the town website about what policies or procedures Um residents need to use would be very helpful Yeah, yeah, or Attempt i'm going to go with that word attempt to get what they want because I don't think every I'm never going to be re-elected. So every citizen's petition is not one that needs to be Responded to positively it needs to be responded to positively but not necessarily decided in their favor So no one can come to us and say we don't know what the process is because there's the process And you know if there's a problem we can fix it But right now people can legitimately say As you've said pat, you know, I've been asking asking asking nothing happens It's like, you know, apparently the only way to get anything done is if you have to know people And clearly we're trying to get away from that. It's right to get away from that And part of that would be having a process that we can say here it is And tell us at what stage this broke down Okay There's no public present. Um, and so there is no public comment I'd like to adopt the minutes of february 26 Again with gratitude to the town clerk for doing this But any changes comments edits I will adopt them by consensus unless there are any Changes that people would like to make the minutes are in your packet And I can give you a minute to look at it if you need it because we're doing so we're not going to beat Mandy's record I'm afraid but it looks like we might have a chance to at least Be getting close to it Any thoughts about the minutes Okay I'd say we're going to accept the minutes by consensus Future agenda items I a couple things came up at council meeting where I need your help For advice and I may have to reach out to some other people But Darcy mentioned a single-use container bylaw I know you're looking this is the chair and his Where is it? How can I help her anybody here? So so if you remember Yes, I think I remember by law review recommended changes to three bylaws the single-use plastic bag the condo conversion and the noise bylaw There were objections to some of the changes that the viola review committee recommended and so three counselors Mandy joe Darcy and Kathy right Mandy was the uh came forth with Changes that they want made we decided to adopt the viola review changes clean With the expectation that though their changes would be referred here, right? So Here's what I I am unclear about Um personally is they were I I don't know If they were referred to go well, they should have been referred for clarity consistency and action ability And to some extent that makes sense for Kathy's because she kind of wrote a replacement condo conversion bylaw So actually that should probably go to town attorney and then come back to us Darcy I think was just trying to add Darcy and Mandy joe were just trying to add stuff back in although Darcy did change. I think some of the statistics that were out of date um So to me you can't treat them separately because Kathy kind of rewrote a new bylaw And you we should be treating almost as if it's a new bylaw being introduced Whereas Mandy joe and Darcy just want to put back in stuff that was taken out and so, um Mandy joe's is the simplest But I don't know what this committee can offer because you we can't make a She wants to actually she wants to delete something that was added, right? It's a motion to to amend to delete something that was added We can't make a recommendation on clarity consistency and action ability On deleting something that was that was added, right? So it's a substantive discussion. So it doesn't really belong here necessarily the condo conversion thing I'm not sure it does either until after it's gone through attorney attorney review. Um, and perhaps goes to Perhaps crc Because it's a housing issue really about how we how we deal with condos But I'm not even this is the thing. I'm not sure Yeah, it doesn't seem like the condo conversion thing should Have to go to crc. I mean I you know I get frustrated with how many committees Yeah, but because it already has been a bylaw Yes, it's being rewritten and if the we look the lawyer looks at it Then gls is responsible to decide whether we're going to go with the lawyer's language It does that make it actionable clear consistent and actionable and then it gets returned to The council to vote on whether they wanted to include it in the bylaws. I think And then just to speak briefly on the single use one So it's the opposite of manatee joe's where darcy wants to add back in stuff that had been recommended for Deletion. I don't know what this committee could do with that because essentially we'd be discussing whether it's The the addition re the re addition makes the bylaw more clear and consistent But actually G. O. L. I mean g. O. L. Byler of you took it out for clarity and consistency. So I guess in theory we could make a recommendation We being you all now right could make a recommendation about whether you think it should be added back in Right, and so it's it's these three things Are sort of in this weird gray area All right, this is helpful Athena, please If I remember right the plastic bag was changed it wasn't adding back in the exact language that was removed It was different language. I'd have to look back through the meeting packet But I know she submitted something prior to that meeting that was different language than was in the existing bylaw. So I can dig it out See one of the problems that I'm having as a chair and this is something hopefully I will solve before I Get thrown off Is just where these things are I don't know where they are now Um, and so I can't even I mean I will turn to Athena and she will probably be able to help me Right away Three of them I can't find and I need to figure out a way I can hold a figure figure hold on to them But that's my problem. So that's a problem. I can solve with that. We're talking to the town clerk or to the to the council clerk, but um Okay, good. This is very helpful And I will reach out to Athena and I will track these things down and then I will make a decision as to how we should proceed Based on your helpful suggestions And I can reach out to the sponsors as well And as I promised to do to at least Dorothy and to Kathy and I certainly can do that to Mandy as well We had a discussion last time this is Well, I think I'm going to leave it at that. Okay So that's items I have not anticipated We've gone through the agenda anything anyone needs to Okay Again, my thanks to Evan greatly for his service on this committee. He has been invaluable and you'll probably still be consulted on a regular basis Much to a chagrin and of course, it's still going to see me at least on tso So he can't escape us completely I'm ready to adjourn this meeting at Believe it or not, 1215 All right. Thank you all. Thank you to our new no take around to as always our council clerk