 So the first thing on our agenda is this mask mandate discussion, but I actually want to flip that around with item four, the discussion regarding proposed council resolution condemning racism and police brutality. So if there's no objection to that, I'd love to do that first and any objection to that? No. Okay, great. So I'm going to turn that over to Lauren to talk about. Yeah, and so I had been working on a resolution, you know, as the name states condemning police brutality and racism. And, you know, I know this is an issue top of mind for our community. Really important and really, you know, hope that as the city council, we can make a statement on this. I ended up I was trying to pull it together quickly and was getting some input from some important stakeholders and ended up not having enough time to incorporate and try to get the language right so that it really kind of reflects what I hope to put forward to you all to consider. So I'm hoping we can consider that next week. And apologies for the kind of coming in last minute but would, you know, rather get it right than try to rush it. Knowing it's a really important statement that I hope we can make together. So that's the short update. And that will give more time for you all to look at it and consider it then trying to rush it and rush it out to you. Sorry, thank you for working on that. Dan. Yeah, just a quick question as to, you know, is this a resolution that would, you know, obviously condemn these racism and brutality. But is there any type of action that's attached to it. What I'm just speaking to is our is effectively affirming our commitment to, you know, continuously be working as a community to ensure that, you know, our city and working with our police department to make sure we're implementing, you know, the best possible practices, and that we're kind of convening community conversations on this topic as we've previously kind of enshrined in our social and economic justice advisory committee. So that's, that's but that those are the pieces that I'm working to make sure that I can really refine and make sure they are the right next steps, or the right kind of what we're resolving to do from here. And along those lines. I received a call. I mean, email from a constituent asking, you know, if there was any sort of formal committee that has ever sort of a channel of feedback to the police not saying that necessarily we have a problem here but you know and it just made me realize and maybe bill you know the answer to this. It has there ever been any type of sort of formal conduit to the police as a citizen advisory panel or something something similar because it strikes me that you know it's one thing for this resolution. I mean, it doesn't seem like it's going to end down and but it raises an interesting question of, you know, how do we as citizens give feedback to the police. I can tell you that every time you know it's occasionally come up, not actually that often. When it has the city council has actually said pretty much repeatedly, we feel that we're the elected representatives and we have a pretty good connection with the police department we can see them whenever we want higher manager to receive them. And that is the avenue for people out of control we're not so big that that the police is out of our sight. And that said, groups like the Community Justice Center have interactions with them the Social Economic Justice Committee have interactions or offer suggestions and look at things you know various groups have come up over the years to talk about specific issues committees but typically whenever any kind of police advisory or oversight or whatever committees come up, at least in the past Council has said, we got this. I guess my own opinion is it's worked really well we haven't had you know we've got an excellent police department. We don't have a lot of costs for concern, push for high standards they've delivered high standards. Council's been a great reflection of the community for the police department. Neither comments on this particular topic. Okay. Sorry, I feel like I heard someone there. Yeah, I want to speak on this this is Steve Whitaker. Oh hi. Good Steve. I want to take. I want to differ with Bill that we don't have problems here. I want to remind you that when after Mark Johnson was shot, we agreed to have a another session where the public. There's many concerned people who talk to me regularly that we're not given an opportunity to speak about the impact that has had on our community. Instead, it was brushed under the rug at seven seventh on the menu of the next meeting and considered finished. And I recently wrote city counselors and I believe I copied the city manager of one of the homeless guys who is his unopened beers were stolen and he can't make it make any sense out of, you know, why he could go get arrested for stealing his unopened beers from the store but the cops can steal his unopened beers. And we do have problems that we do need an oversight committee with teeth. I'll leave it there. Okay. Thank you Steven. Mayor if you're taking public comment on this we have two folks raised in their hands currently and Aaron Oh and then someone who's calling. All things LGBTQ. Great yes. Let's go with Aaron first. Let's go. Thanks. So I was curious if there are scheduled trainings education, etc. For emergency response teams in general, not just the police department, but all teams. And are they open for the public to review and to provide feedback to my question. That's a great question and Aaron, I'm sorry to interrupt. Would you mind also just telling us where you live. Awesome. And John, do you need anything else for the record. There. I'm going to go with no, it would be, I'm sorry, it would be great to have your, your full names. Well, I'm not just putting Aaron Oh, sure. It's Aaron last name is O'Connell O'Connell and NEL. Yeah, great. Thank you. Thank you. So I would say we have a whole lot of trainings that a lot of departments participate in fire police some of them are physical training some of them are situation training. Please do anything from they certainly do implicit bias training they do mental health training they do. They were the first department in the state to be fully certified in, I want to call it the team to training there's a different name for it. They do tactical training they do, you know, emergency response training they do interaction so all sorts of training the chief usually reviews those with the council during budget time or other times to go over and be happy to go through and provide a list of what the types of You know, it's pretty ongoing I think the same the fire department and DPW we have all sorts of things as a city we specifically to speak to this point we try to do annually implicit bias and those types of training for all of the folks that, that can interact with the public in any way. And obviously we just announced a new police chief today so he will probably bring his own training regimen in, you know, reflecting those priorities. You don't know what that will be. Okay. Thank you and all things LGBTQ. Yes, first of all I'd like to identify myself by name is and Charles and my zoom account is under the name of a table access show we have what I'm not calling from all things LGBTQ I'm calling this a private citizen. And my second point is, I had originally planned to just listen to the mass discussion, but since this has come up I. And I don't want to be confrontational but I was a little concerned by Mr Frazier, had answer, everything is fine. The other caller member of the public mentioned that shooting in the round table in the roundabout in Montpelier that many citizens found very disturbing. And, you know, as a citizen who's been following, I've lived here 12 years in Montpelier, you know, when that young man was shot in the high school that he was shot 14 times. I mean, a lot of these things raise concerns, and the public has them, but I, you know, so I was disturbed by Mr Frazier saying everything's fine it's all good. We've got training we've got everything in place, because I would argue that everything isn't necessarily in place. That's all. Yeah, I'd like to apologize if if if I said that I didn't mean to say quite that whether everything was fine what I meant to say what what I was trying to say was the interactions between the police and the public and the council have been working fine obviously there are things of great concern. The mayor did hold a forum despite what you heard earlier, inviting people to come to talk about that and very few people participated. And obviously when when the findings were released we did a full press release live broadcast live with the state's attorney we released all the videos. There are very disturbing things nobody wants to be involved in these things I can understand why anybody would be be understood about that. I do think when you said someone was shot 14 times. I'm not sure that's correct and second of all, that implies 14 separate shootings, you know, there were a lot of people and folks that defy all fired at the same time wasn't not to make light of it, but that implies repeated action was it was very spontaneous the person lifted a gun at a police officer, and those on site responded. Again, as much videos could be released from that and information from that could be presented so I appreciate the concern. We take this all very seriously and try to release as much as we can as publicly as we can at all times. And if I may just say one more response. I think there is. I wouldn't say widespread but there is active distrust of the police in Montpelier and in Vermont. And so I just like to present a counter narrative, although, you know, I'm not an expert on these things, either. Thank you. I think there's always some distrust of police everywhere. And it's something we try to work all the time to break down and I probably didn't hear the new chief today talk about that's his top priorities to reach out to the community and build as much trust as possible. Very good thank you. And. Yes. Oh, I'm sorry there's a another another person has raised their hands but go ahead and you go ahead to unmute yourself. I'm the person that wrote the letters this morning to most of the council members and to you the mayor and I did write a letter to the current police chief, although I had heard about the new police chief and first of all I want to thank you for all the work that you do. I've been to Montpelier before a number of years now and I call it home and I love Montpelier. It's my favorite city in the world. And I spent a lot of time in Philly and New York City and Boston and that's where we go for fun and museums, but I did write a letter about citizen. This is a citizen oversight committee because, well, I feel very safe in this town, most of the time and I feel like everything that's happening in the world. We do a great job at a lot of things, and I think like to sort of intercept this at a time where where it's advantageous because we have a new police chief coming in that we could really like, I love reading the police law because it's like we closed down the tourism shack and we walk these people to the bank and I'm just like, oh, that's so cute. And that's always the wonderful thing about Montpelier is that there's community policing and I've never had a run in. I've had a run in with police in other places, but never here and as a person of color I'm always like on edge about things but Montpelier is my home I grew up in Marshfield, I lived in Montreal I came back here because I couldn't quite move back to Marshfield but I love Montpelier and it is my home and I'm just like, this is a place that is wonderful, and we can make it better, and I'm hoping like, I think about like how we can make it better before it gets worse, and how we can be a shining example because my daughter lives here and I want her to be like, I want to live in Montpelier when I grow up. We have so many friends here and it's a great place and I just want to keep it a great place and that's why I wrote you guys and that's why I really really hope that we can do something I know there's been efforts in the past. I know there's been people involved that sort of like the urgency is here and who the people that want to participate on their own level where they say we have to address white supremacy we have to do this we have to do that. I mean, even if it's just simple questions it doesn't have to be a stat com meeting it doesn't have to be morbidity and mortality, it can be just a community meeting where we're like, hey, we love the fact you closed down the tourism thing and hey like, you know when I say the police, I'm not afraid I like, love walking down the street I don't have any fears about walking down the street here whereas in other places I do, and I think that like that community feeling is what makes this a great town, but I also feel like I would like to see more people of color in this town and say that it's a great place and I know my friend Kaia, she has a legislator here and she works here every now and again and I'm like you can come stay at my house and bring your kid and my daughter will babysit for you. And that's what I want like everybody to feel welcome here and if we have a history of doing the right thing, then that's what's important not just like we tried this we can do it. We don't need to do it because it's addressed. We just do it because we meet as community members and we talk about things. And it's like the old town meetings where like people talk to me about Vermont town meetings, like that's where we meet each other face to face. And there's no like amount of work that I won't put in an hours I won't put in, but this is really important because I think this town deserves it and I think it's important because this is our capital city and do lots of great things like not letting Donaldson so we can do more great things. And I really believe in this. Thank you. Thank you. I'm glad that I don't think I think we would be delighted and I'm certain that both present chief and the new chief would be happy to have community forums and group meetings. I think that's a great suggestion. I think it goes up a regular basis. I think it's a wonderful idea. You know, I, if this was during normal time I feel like something that could that would be really neat would be even just like an introductory meeting, like just to say, Hey, Montpelier. Here's our new police chief come and and meet our new chief and ask him all the questions you have almost as like an initial meeting as to like what you're suggesting that's not exactly the same as an oversight board but it's an interesting, it could be a first step towards that. Anyway, I'm open to that and let's, let's talk more about it. Thank you so much. Oh, and john, do you actually so and or on I just, I'm, it would be great if we knew your full name and where you live. Oh, you're still muted. My name is on to charm, and I live on Berry Street 191 Berry Street 202. And, and Charles, I just, I know, I think I know where you live but if you could tell just for the record where you're at. I'm currently 58 Berry Street apartment 302. Goodness Berry Street representing today. Yeah. Also, also very straight right here. Anyway. Okay, cool anyone else. Okay. Thank you all thanks for your thoughtful comments and I hope this is the beginning of the discussion and not the end of it so let's let's keep talking. So, we'll move on to the mask discussion the mask mandate. So there've been, well so there was a draft that was attached and I know there's a couple of different edits that have been floating around. I'm going to turn this over to either bill or Cameron to introduce and we'll go from there. So, I'll do a quick intro then slide it to camera and after your last meeting, we did research the issue of a health order, and we're basically told by the health department they did not think that was an appropriate use of a health order and that they wanted to keep health orders consistent around the state. They urged us to do this under the authority of the governor's executive order, which is what we've cited which also expressly granted the authority to cities and towns. That's as far as we can tell is what the other communities of an active these have used as their authority. And Cameron did the drafting based primarily on Brattleboro I think we had last meeting when we talked about this people liked their approach so we use that as our primary basis, but I'll turn that over to her for the details. Yes, so in the order, we did make sure to cite your legislative power to do this and the instructions from the governor to that he wants legislative bodies of each municipality to enact fees. Also based on your feedback from last week, we added a more robust exceptions section and made sure that that language was consistent with what the state's guidance is. So that does include an age limit. The state recommended in this health department recommended anyone under the age of two to not wear a mask. So that was very clear, and that if somebody does have a medical condition that prevents them from wearing a facial covering they should not be held to the standard of wearing one if they have a disability, or are differently abled and cannot wear a mask. So I do want to make a note about the effective period because of right now the state of emergency in Vermont is set to be lifted June 15, unless the governor extends it. So I'm going to go through either y'all amending, resending or suspending this order if you do enact it, or until the state of emergency is ended the way it's written. So, because that is the thing that gives the power to your body to enact this sort of measure so right now that's the 15th or that could change. Okay. And I just want to clarify there's on this draft, the on the draft that has been posted there are a couple of edits that people will that that came up one was just removing the reference to airports. And the other was adding some specificity to other locations to post signs. So that's in the queue for for amendments. Before we get too, too deep in. Dan, do you want to add anything about or, you know, say anything about this. I'm a former executive director of Montpelier alive and resident Liberty Street. I, first of all, I want to express gratitude to the city council for considering this representing more than 65 businesses downtown who have already pledged to require a mass to their customers. So thank you so much for being here in step for the health and safety of our community. So thank you so much. I also want to express gratitude for your thoughtfulness and considering the exceptions for people with health issues that there's been a lot of discussion of that on on our Facebook page certainly as we discussed that city council was considering that. Thank you for including that. The only thing I would add and I emailed the mayor and bill about this this morning is some concern about face shields being allowed in place of a face mask or covering. As of the last we heard from the agency of commerce and community development fish shields are not an acceptable substitution for face masks, except if there's an underlying health condition that prevents the mass from being worn. And there was some concern among businesses that if there was an alternative presented that then this whole sort of unified front that we're trying to present by having a city ordinance might get impacted by having some, some businesses that were affected and allowing the shields and others that were so I I'm encouraging the council to remove the masks or perhaps to move that into the section about exceptions and maybe say that that could be an acceptable alternative if there's an underlying condition that prevents the use of a mask. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, Jack. I'm unmuted. Yeah, I'm unmuted. Thank you. I emailed the council proposal of amendment. I wasn't sure exactly how to manage this given that we're not going to be here in person so I thought this would be an easy way to get it in front of people. And I would share, share the screen share this document to the screen except I'm not to do it, but the part of my takeaway from a meeting we had last week was that because we talked about the fact that right now businesses have the authority to refuse entry to anyone that doesn't wear a mask if they choose to do that and I had a sense that businesses didn't want to be the heavies didn't want to be the one that was telling people you can't come in if you don't wear a mask and but when the way the language is drafted. It still puts that burden on the business of requiring customers, staff and visitors to wear a mask. So my proposed amendment that the highlighted language would be to require be basically saying, as a matter of the city ordinance, the city itself is telling people you are required to wear a mask when you enter an establishment located in the city of Monty. And so the proposal, and I moved to make this amendment to add the language after the word 2020 any person, whether an employee, a customer or a visitor visitor who enters and then deletes the word all adds the word and deletes the s from establishments and then continuing on shall deleting require both staff and customers or visitors to so just read that any person, whether an employee, a customer or a visitor enters an establishment located in the city of Monty shall wear face coverings or face shields over their nose and mouth while inside the establishment. And then it just makes clear that this is a general requirement imposed by the city on everyone entering a business in the city. I have a question on that. Sorry, Mayor. I just address what Dan just said about moving the face shields to the exceptions section, stating it like if anyone has a medical condition that is complicated by facial coverings like a cloth mask face shield is an appropriate alternative, maybe taking it out of that section. I agree with that idea. Connor and then Dan. I'll second the motions with Cameron suggested edit there. And just say I, you know, I think when we do this we don't do it lately. They spoke to a couple of business owners today who, you know, it's very real for them as they're started back up. They've been through the mill already with the Corona virus. And just the thought of, you know, this may be preventing them from having a couple of customers is very anxiety inducing to them. But, you know, government government like municipal government that including really is operating at the apex of its power during the Corona virus. And I think every meeting we go through there are things we try to decide that might be outside our comfort level a bit. I still think this should have been a state initiative but it's not. And when you talk to workers when it comes back. I think it is a workers issue. We spoke about this last time. I spoke to a couple retail workers who said, you know, my boss isn't requiring this. And every day when I go to work, I go to work with a pit in my stomach. I can see people going in and out. And I don't want this to happen to my family and myself. I see this as a way just like OSHA, anything just kind of leveling the playing field for businesses a month earlier to make sure employees don't have that anxiety when they go to work each day. And I think it does relieve business owners a bit. So, you know, it's not something we like to do as city council. But I think it's important that we do it. And so again, I second jack's motion here. I just want to be clear. So you're in Jack. So your motion is about. I understand Jack's motion to be about the portion about all employees and removing the bit later about require both staff and customers were visitors to. But is it also including Dan suggestion about moving the section about face shields. My motion doesn't include that we would need to add language. I suggest we we deal with my motion, then add language to do that other suggestion. Okay. And just want to flag also the thing about airports, not that it's a big deal. I saw Dan and then Donna. Well, it may make sense to go forward with jack's motion I have additional change, or at least a question about the term establishment. I didn't see any definition of it. And the problem that I have is that establishment under the dictionary includes both public businesses, as well as places of residence. And I don't think we intend to include that. And I also don't think we intend to include, you know, any, any place of business where the public doesn't necessarily enter. And this is really for public entrances, you know, places where the workers or customers or people are being in a general flow. So, you know, either, I think it might make sense to just define establishment for to be a place of a place of business where the public regularly. enters and exits. And that way it doesn't, it doesn't, it doesn't accidentally include residences and it doesn't accidentally include, you know, businesses where there is no public visitor, the sort of sole office kind of place. Okay, point is well taken. Just because there was a motion on this. I'm willing to, that's why I say I'm willing to, sorry, I went a little too far. I'm going to sort of read the statement allowed again sort of with tax amendments so that we can get the understanding because I think the way it's written underlines what Dan is talking about so I just want to read it out loud one more time and sort of get the understanding of what the motion is. If that's okay, Mayor. That is. Are you going to take public comment on this. We will, but I think Donna is actually next let's hear from Donna and then we'll have a reading of the statements and then we'll see if there's further discussion, but we will take comment on even just this amendment so Donna go ahead. Do you want me to go before Cameron or after her. Before is it on this topic. I mean I do agree with Cameron that the whole statement makes it very clear that it's not a private resident. And you could add the word public in front of establishment. I would hope that Jack will be willing maybe either we have a lot of motions, or we could add public in front of establishment take out face shields and accept his proposal. Open to that Jack, or do we need to make several motions. Oh sure that's fine with me. All good to. So that it would read who enters a public establishment, and just further defines what is later said, the establishment purpose of receiving services purchasing products or otherwise conducting business. Shall wear face coverings over their nose and mouth well inside the establishment. Is that clear John. John Odom. Oh, yes. I'll have the language for him as well. Yeah, I can. Okay. So, so Jack and Connor we're feeling clear about that language then. Okay. Yes. And, okay, so any other comments from the council on this particular amendment and then we'll go to comments from the public. Okay. Any comments from the public on this. Somebody muted me just after I asked that last question so now I had to mute myself this time. This is Steve Whitaker for the record. Okay. So I'm going to go back to the reference to proposed amendments to the amendments, all of which have not been seen and can't be seen by someone over a telephone. Tell me that this is this like the other proposal that Lauren Earl has offered should be postponed to a subsequent meeting and put forth properly on paper ahead of time. I think the absurdity or the hypocrisy of when you've been made aware that people are crapping in the streets for lack of public bathrooms and you're not worried about health that health problem is is kind of absurd that we're going to use this. I don't mind being told I can't go into books feeler without a mask on and I went and found a mask and went back staying with all of Vita. I think the merchants can handle this at their own discretion to kind of be the big brother and say we're going to absolve you of the need to be the heavy is really badly absurd when you got bigger problems on your plate, like lack of public restrooms and a lot of people making real public health hazards out of that, which is contagious. So, I think I would ask that you consider properly presenting this in full written form and dealing with it as subsequent it may be moved in two weeks anyway so you're really going through the motions you know, and deal with some of the bigger problems. Thank you. Thank you, Stephen. Any further comment from the public. We have two hands raised on Dan Groberg and and Charles. Okay, let's. Let's go with the and Charles first and we'll go to Dan that's all right. Go ahead and. Thank you. Became concerned about this for several reasons that I think are obvious to most of the members of this committee. I told I couldn't come last week, but I listened to most of your session, and it seemed like we were all on the same page. The reason I was originally concerned is that there's so much backlash on from porch forum and elsewhere in the public to a modest measure of require of requiring customers to wear masks that I'm really appalled and I agree with all of the speakers I can remember Connor, and one other person who spoke with merchants in rural air, you know, outside of Montpelier who said that it's unfair to put the burden on them. I think of, I think of several merchants who are my friends who I mean we hear around the country of violence against people trying to enforce this very modest measure. So, you know, and Dan Groberg I didn't realize about his initiative of, you know, what is it, 84 businesses signed on to it I learned about it last time I'd like to applaud that. And I'd like to applaud all your efforts and I hope cooler heads are prevailing in this body and they seem to be. So that's all I have to say really. Thank you and Dan, go ahead. Thank you. I realized while we're, while we're already amending things that as, as I understand the order as written. There are not any exceptions for businesses in which it would be impossible to wear a mask wall. For instance, I can think of indoor dining which is going to be allowed shortly. I can also think of closed contact businesses like hairstylists are currently allowed to do like beard trims or things like that that might require you to remove a mask. And I'm not sure that that's progressed in this order. I don't have any suggestions regarding that, or that we just revisit it once the rules have changed. I mean I think it, there are businesses that it would impact already so I would be concerned about revisiting it subsequently. I wonder if there's some way to put it in the exceptions like it's hard to say like where state guidance has accepted it because state guidance is not requiring it to begin with but perhaps there's some way to say like in specific circumstances where state guidance allows allows. I don't know, I know. I, there are, there are brighter minds who aren't judge writing these things on the call. So, there is an exceptions section. Perhaps we can call out some businesses that we know will like it doesn't make sense for them to do business while wearing masks. Let's let's revisit that. So, because right now we have a motion and it's been seconded on some specific language changes. Any further discussion about that. Okay, all in favor please say aye. Aye. Aye. And opposed. Okay, did not see anyone there so motion carries. So we've changed it a bit. I want to come back to actually Lauren did you have something you wanted to add I feel like you've been kind of raising your hand. I just had to really care things which apologies for not getting the chance to email. One is is just at the top of page two it says in accordance the state of Vermont executive firm I think it's supposed to be in accordance with the state of Vermont so just make sure that reads okay. And then we've got people can see where that is. And then we have on the paragraph right above that the very bottom of page one. It says starting June 3rd all establishments. I'm wondering if we'd like pass this now if there's businesses open this evening. I don't know if there are but like, should we do it tomorrow at least so people could get the word out. Some kind of notice to our businesses especially since we're going to, they're going to have to figure out signage and that kind of stuff, just a little bit of cushion there might be good. Would you suggest tomorrow, Friday, Monday, Saturday. Dan Groberg might have thought that people feel like immediately is good so people can just start referring to us if you know so maybe even as soon as tomorrow and we can post it tonight up publicly and stuff and then can send message to the members and I don't want to delay this because it seems like it's helpful to the businesses from what we're hearing. I just more. It seems like until we can put the word out it's hard to say. I think we could suggest a compromise in which the signage is not required until Monday, perhaps but the ordinance goes into effect tomorrow. That makes sense to me. Sorry so you're saying the signage isn't required until perhaps Monday. Correct. Lauren are you making a motion to make these changes. I can unless I don't have anyone else has any other simple ones that could be lumped or if it's easier to just. I would include in that the removal of or airports, airports, yes, airports, yes. And then there is one other line that I would like to potentially include, and it's going to take me a second to get there. I want to come back to Dan, you had made a comment earlier about public establish establishments or establishments in general how are you feeling about that with the modifications we've made so far. Well actually, you know I'm comfortable with the public establishments and the con and read within the context of that I think that helps to clarify. It's just the establishment because the establishment word was repeated several times throughout, I think adding that public is satisfies that. I think my other concern, you know, dovetails a little bit with Dan Groberg's concern, which is that I don't think we want this mask requirement to apply where it would. It would thwart the activity such as a restaurant, or where it would serve no public purpose such as a single occupant office where there isn't a flow of traffic. As I sit here in my office alone. I wonder if this ordinance would require me to wear a mask in those circumstances and I think it's just something that I want to make be satisfied that either we have an exception or the language can be read, not to apply in such a such a case. So, let's revisit the exceptions part in a minute I feel like we're kind of in like perfunctory sort of front or you know, easiest changes right now. That's not a problem. Yeah, cool. So there's one other line that I think is probably not that controversial, which is under the posting of requirements that paragraph, just to add a sentence at the end that said other locations can be alternative entrances parentheses like back doors, comma etc, or at transaction locations such as registers parentheses. So it's just trying to give a little a little specificity to what other locations might be appropriate. Any other sort of perfunctory stuff. On that posting requirement I just went back and looked at it as you were talking about it. It might be better instead of saying each individual each establishment is individually responsible. It might be better just say chat, each individual each establishment shall post signage. That makes sense to me. So as as we're keeping track here we have in accordance with the state of Vermont removal of airports. The line about other locations, changing the posting requirement to shell and then also an effective date. That's what we say for Monday for the posting requirements. I think that's five changes is, is there anything else that's relatively perfunctory here. Donna, I just wondered if in the exceptions, could you put except while eating. Well, let's let's deal with the exceptions in a minute because I think that's going to be a little bit. Okay. Yeah, go ahead Dan. Oh, sorry. I don't know which day I was talking about but I was going to suggest language to help the other Dan so adding the language while in the presence of others. That's language that's appeared in other state sector. Another piece is like, I'm thinking about my, you know, employees who are in their stores by themselves. You know, maybe they want to break from their mask between customers, because they're annoying to wear, or, you know, you know, maybe they're not actually open they're just preparing orders or doing other things do they need to be wearing a mask so perhaps while in the presence of others where, where would be, I think we're still going to need to revisit the exceptions are probably because of salons but where. So it could be. Sorry, I have so many windows open while inside the establishment and in the presence of others. Which paragraph is that under that's requirement paragraph under requirements where face covering. Okay, great. Okay. So is there a motion regarding these changes. I'll make that motion. Second. Okay, any further discussion about these changes are we do I need to list them again are we feeling pretty clear. As long as we're including the dam suggestion which I think does hit exactly on the nail head the concern that I had. Okay. While in the presence of others, and then these minor edits as well as what I understand my motion to include. Yeah. Okay, any further discussion on this. Okay, all in favor please say aye. Okay. Okay. Dan, Dan first and then Jack. Okay. I have, I've taken a stab at possible language to dance concern. Which is we could, if you're ready to talk about exceptions. Yes, that would be the time. So, I would suggest this sentence in the exceptions, just at the end of the current exception saying this ordinance shall not strictly apply. If it would frustrate the primary purpose of the business such as a restaurant or salon. Please repeat that for me. I'm keeping track of it's for John. The ordinance shall not strictly apply if it would frustrate the primary purpose of the business, such as a restaurant or salon. Cool. Okay. And then Jack then Lauren. It's exactly where I was going. I have a slightly different formulation. So what we, which one of them we like better. And might we go on the same space at the end of exceptions. And it would say masks will not be required for healthcare, health and beauty, close contact food service, or other business establishments in which the nature of the service provided is incompatible with the way I think you want to be careful about food service because during the preparation of food and that kind of stuff. Good point. Okay, so Lauren and then Donna. I'm hearing those two iterations. I mean I might be more inclined towards Dan not getting into naming because I mean I'm thinking, Jacks would cover some of this but you know, you can start thinking of, you know, dentistry, I don't know gyms open things like that where wearing a mask might be difficult. So I like that, you know would frustrate the primary purpose of it or however it was exactly worded. I might not say salons as one of the examples maybe something else because I think we're getting a haircut. You could wear a mask, but some services like a beard trim you couldn't so I'd rather not fully exempt salons use as an example that would be accepted I think we could come up with another, you know, kind of business that the nature is more clearly always dentistry. And I'm happy to even remove the examples because you know that just may be the cleanest way and just leave the language frustrate the primary purpose of the business. Okay. Donna. And my question for that example is, when you go into a restaurant I would still expect people to wear a mask, except when they're seated at their table with their group and they're eating. How do you get. So is that the assumption they're going to have their mask in between their munching. And that that's actually so I guess I would add this this cause and I, as a refinement on that is it this ordinance shall not strictly apply to the extent it would frustrate the primary purpose of the business. So that way it's, you know, it's carving out this limited exception to the extent that it frustrates the primary purpose so like in the restaurant example, you wear the mask while you're walking in but you know, you're going to be interpreted as preventing you from drinking or eating. And same thing with the haircut hair salon. So, you know, if you're getting a beard trimmed you're going to have to lift up the mask but if you're just getting the neck hair removed. You know, you can keep the mask on. And the assumption would be that if indeed it doesn't impact the employee with their duties they would keep theirs on even though they might not. Okay, thank you. That makes sense to me. Jack did you have something else you wanted to add. No, I'm happy with where we're going. Okay. Connor. Just a follow up on that like, how would we see like a coffee shop playing out right. You go in you buy a coffee maybe have a couple sips on the way out or something. How would that fall into something like this. Well, at least I would think you know, the way the coffee shops are being formulated right now. They're not on premises consumption their takeout so you're not that's not the primary purpose to sit there and drink coffee. Presumably if they did. Yeah, you would be able to to sip the coffee but if you're just walking out and you can't wait to get that caffeine I don't think you're frustrating. It wouldn't frustrate the primary purpose for you to sit to either the shop owner or who was ever enforcing this to say just wait and go out and I wouldn't interpret this exception exception to apply to that situation. I would imagine as well that if you're actually in the establishment, getting coffee then there maybe that would be at such a time that other people are able to dine. And so you're effectively, you know, dining in a certain sense at that point. And we also have to understand that, you know, this is a whole new territory of regulation and practice for everybody and we're probably not going to cover every detail and explicit, you know, explicitly. And some of this we may have to learn as we go but the message is where your masks and public place in any establishment. We're going to get two into the weeds that's where we were. That's where you all wanted to head in here we probably want to go. Yeah. So, um, Lauren, just wanted to circle back did we in the in Jack's amendment, fix the issue that Dan Groberg had raised about face shields, I'm just trying to remember, had we removed that and then did we want to add did we add that language to the exception language or did we want to. We did not add it in the exceptions, as an alternative people could wear with, you know, health or other challenges we had talked about maybe doing that so I wanted to just erase that. I think we removed it from the previous section of we did not add it into the exceptions. Is that correct Cameron. Donna go ahead. A bit of your concern I would rather not have face shields to the exceptions, because I feel it's a heavier burden to find them for one thing, and that people may have still had the same health issues. Well, I think I just want to put that out there that if you say something like if anyone has a medical condition that's complicated by facial covering like a cloth mask. A face shield is an appropriate alternative if they feel safe like, so it makes that if they have that they know that it's an alternative that they can wear inside that building. Okay, an alternative versus a requirement you mean. Right. Okay, thank you. So it's feeling like we may be at the point of another motion to amend this language, either with Dan's or with Jack's language, and then possibly also plus adding in the face mask alternative thoughts on that anyone want to make a motion. And then can you take a comment. Oh, yeah. Here go for Stephen. Okay, I just, I, I, I'm trying to look at this from a point of view of both a customer and a merchant and it's unclear who's responsible for enforcing this and what the penalties are. You know, if it's going to be so complex that the merchants are going to be nervous whether they need a lawyer to interpret it and whether or not they're on the hook for a fine for not understanding it versus the, or is the, or is there even a penalty in this at all. But I'm just the concern is that this is a possibly more for show than anything else. And that it isn't really workable at the current way we're proceeding to do it. And I'll just again, ask you to table it until you can really figure out whether, you know, maybe you want to require $195 masks because they're effective, you know, I enough. Thank you. Well, you raise a good point about consequences with we've not actually I think this is the first emergency order I've ever been a part of issuing. So I'm not, I don't know what's normal necessarily for consequences any comment about that either bill. We did speak with Chief Fakus about this, you know, this is operating the same way as the, as all of the state's orders, which is that expectation is that there will be voluntary compliance and that has generally been the case here in Vermont. You know, certainly someone can volunteer, can violate this order, we'd have to look exactly what happened to them. But there's a secondary if someone's in one of these establishments and are being asked to leave because they're in violation, they're also trespassing. And that I think the police are more interested in eliminating the problem as it exists at the time, rather than necessarily finding people that you know the idea is if someone's not being doing something healthy, get them out of the situation. So I, you know, chief is on the call that I would be happy to check in with him again but that was what my understanding camera am I right about that. My understanding is the same is that this is a voluntary compliance but it would be the same as like an ordinance violation it's a simple ticket if I understand it correctly, unless you, but that's not something we'd be actively policing from what we've been told. It's just a voluntary compliance and if a business asks you to leave and you do not leave then it is a trespass. So coming back to the idea about or the paragraph on exceptions is there a motion regarding exceptions. I'll make a motion that we adopt the language that I proposed, as well as the face shield alternative language and exceptions. Okay, we've got a couple seconds on do we need that language read again or do you feel clear. I would love to read it out loud just to make sure everyone is on the same page with what I wrote down. Make sure I captured everything. So I wrote at the end of the paragraph on exception. If anyone has a medical condition that is located by facial coverings like the cloth mask, a face shield is an appropriate alternative. And then in a new paragraph, this ordinance shall not strictly apply to the extent that it frustrates the primary purpose of the business. Jack. May I notice that someone else had her hand up and I don't remember your last name. Before Charles. Okay. I apologize. And Charles go ahead thank you. Thank you jackford. I would just suggest in terms of enforcement that the perfect is the enemy of the good. I mean here we are in the midst of, you know, a health crisis as we all know, and people are running around and grocery stores without masks. Tribalism is arising. People are getting mad at people not wearing masks. And so I think any measure that any ordinance like the one you're talking about would be a deterrent and would help. I mean it just seems like a no brainer it would help merchants it would help customers it would diminish friction in the community. And, you know, I would think, you know, you're the experts, but if somebody, you know, doesn't adhere to a mask ordinance and someone calls the police then, you know, they would be fine or whatever I mean I don't. One of my conversions on this issue said a fine penalizes the poor and so forth. But I think to focus on enforcement gets us off the, I mean, it's voluntary and in certain circumstances it may need to be enforced but I think passing it and I would like to underscore this and I think it needs to be kind of expeditious because here people are running around in supermarkets and have for the last couple of weeks, and you know, my end total observation mask use as increased but there are several people who, you know, we know who refused to wear a mask and would diminish friction and if we got caught up in concerns, if we, if you become deterred by concerns about enforcement that would slow it down and I think, you know, expedition action might be the best course here. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Okay, I think there is a motion and a second. Any further discussion. Anyone from the public. Okay. All right, all in favor, please say aye. Opposed. Okay. So, we've got some lots of refinements this document anything further that people see that they would like to amend bill did you have something. Oh, sorry. I thought you just passed it so sorry. No, it's okay my understanding is that you've amended the proposal we haven't actually passed it yet. You're right. Okay. Yeah, I'll be happy to put that on the table for discussion by making a motion that we adopt the ordinance as amended under our emergency powers as outlined within the ordinance. Okay, for the discussion on this. I'll offer, you know, I think there's been a lot of and I've heard from some constituents as well concerns on both both sides. I'm comfortable with this ordinance because I think it's narrowly drawn. It's focused on the emergency powers that we have and the issues. And mentioned in her comments this and Dan as well. This takes the issue off of people to make these decisions and leading to conflict. And it's for a very limited purpose. I don't think we go into this loosely, or, you know, rashly, I think we have discussed this at past meetings. And what we're doing right now, you know, is is exercising this emergency powers so that we don't have disputes about this that people feel safe going into the places of business. And that when the need for it is done, the power goes away, and the ordinance does as well. And so for those reasons, you know, I do feel comfortable, I think it's a nice balance between civil liberties, public health. And our general desire to have, you know, these kind of disputes this is where city government can really be effective in stepping in. And, you know, just making a rule. This is the rule we all follow, so that people don't have to get into these disputes and squabble so that for those reasons I'm voting for it and support it. Super. Any other comments from the council or from the public. Okay. All right, so I'm going to motion in a second. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed. Okay. All right, well, thanks everyone for for that. Before we take our meeting to Langdon street. I see that we are joined tonight by our newly hired police chief chief Pete. So, Bill, do you want to do you want to say anything? I'd love to like, give you an opportunity to say to introduce yourself anyway, but go ahead, Bill. Sure, so we as we had a press conference this morning introducing Brian Pete is our next police chief he'll begin he's quarantining now although I think he's going to walk Langdon street with us tonight. I'm going to get a sense of how we all operate. And he will begin working with us on June 15, which we're very excited about along with Tony fakers and then when Tony finally says farewell to us on June 30 the chief will chief people take over for real on on July 1. Although I say for real we do have to wait for you to get through. So, this is nothing to do with the chief. This has to everything to do with Vermont certification process which is archaic. It takes forever so until he completes all the certification required to come in from another state, you won't have police authority but will certainly be the chief in charge of the department. I don't be out issuing tickets or arresting people for a week or two or a month or two until that time comes but we're delighted to have him. He was most recently the chief and I'll have ordered in Mexico he's from Chicago so he says the cold doesn't scare him. And he and his lovely wife Natalie and their adorable daughter Gabriella age six have already moved to Montpelier. I think I've got a house to buy right. I'm going to let Brian say hi. And most of you city councilors were on the call this morning but I wanted to also catch some members of the public here so Brian put you on the spot. Yes sir. I just good evening. Thank you all it's a pleasure and honor to be here. And I'm very much looking forward to working for the citizens of this great city and doing my best to continue on the legacies and the foundations that have already been set by chief fakers and they continue our culture of inclusivity transparency and accountability so thank you all for your trust thank you for this amazing outstanding opportunity. And again I'm very much looking forward to to being here. Thank you chief you did miss actually a longer than expected conversation earlier in the meeting about police and transparency. So I think we may have promised you a couple for a couple of community forums at least. But I don't understand and I ready for it and ready to get out there and talk to folks and and do my civic duty and service. Thank you. Thank you sir. I think I will just introduce you to everybody in person. Okay, so in anticipation of discussion about the possible closure of Langdon street to traffic partially or temporarily or something like that. Next week's meeting. We are going to take this meeting to Langdon street and a socially distanced way for a walk, just to get a visual so we meet Langdon in Maine. Sure. Okay. Got it. What's that. Okay, great. Well, so I want to meet me here at City Hall we can walk over together. Cool. If you want to meet me here at City Hall we can walk over together. Yes, sir, I'll be there. Or if he comes down State Street I'm on East State Street I can wait outside. Yeah, there you go. Okay, well I'll be coming down from Betsy's BNB. There you go. All right, we'll see you all in a few. Okay, see you soon and we will not be taking up any business after that so that is a public meeting if anyone wants to attend. Yeah. Okay, we'll see you all there soon. I'm going to adjourn, yes. No, not technically. Okay, we don't adjourn until we get there. Okay, fine. And until that walk is done. Okay. Okay, thanks to you all soon.