 the presence of a quorum. I'm calling the Committee on Outreach Communications and Appointments to order at 9.34 a.m. And so we have a packet posted. I posted it quite a while ago to give you an opportunity to look at that long process that we'll come to. Looking at the agenda, the first two things on it both have to do with planning board appointments slash reappointments. So as a reminder, because it feels like forever ago, the last time we met, we looked at what the current pool was. And as a committee, we made a decision that at that point, the pool was not sufficient to proceed to interviews and that we would use the time between the last meeting and this meeting to hopefully engage in a little bit more recruitment to try to expand the pool. I know that I did my best to do that homework. I think I reached out to no fewer than eight or nine people. I unfortunately have to report today that the pool that you saw last time is the same as the pool you saw. This you would see this time with one exception which is that at our last meeting, I informed you that we had three members of the planning board whose terms were expiring and we were curious in their interest in reappointment. And because this is a reappointment thing, we will talk about these publicly. So we know that Michael Burtwistle is interested in reappointment. When we last met, I informed you that David Levinstein had informed us that he is not interested in being reappointed. I can also now inform you at the time we had not gotten a clear answer from Christine Gray Mullen. We do now have a clear answer. She is not interested in reappointment. So what that means for us is that there are three seats that are up for appointment. One of the incumbent members is interested the other two are not. The pool looks the exact same as it did last time. So that being said, given that last time we talked about the pool, we made the decision that it was not sufficient to proceed to interviews. My assumption and correct me if anyone disagrees with me, but my assumption is probably we feel the same way since there's been no change. So if you looked at the agenda, the first two items were discussion of the sufficiency of the pool and then the development of interview questions. What I wanna have a conversation about really is what you wanna do because we're in an unfortunate situation of time is running short, both for this committee and also for those current terms which expire June 30th. I will say however that the policy is that if a term expires but there is no replacement, essentially that person just rolls over and continues to serve until they are replaced or leave. So they wouldn't necessarily be appointed to a new term but they're not kicked out on June 30th if there's no one who's waiting to take that seat over. I have spoken to David and to Christine. Both are amenable to serving a couple months beyond June 30th if we don't have anyone to replace them because I think they do recognize that planning board of five is very difficult, especially in the summer when as we all know, people are less reliably here although that might be different this summer due to COVID. They're not willing to serve from my understanding beyond the summer. So what that means for us is we have a couple of options as I see it and I really wanna use this time to just hear your thoughts and opinions on this. So the first option is that we do what we did last time and try to meet again as OCA in two weeks and redouble our efforts on recruitment. I'm a little skeptical about that because I know that I worked really, really hard over the past couple of weeks on the phone with people really trying to convince them that this was something that they should do and was really unsuccessful in that, which I don't know perhaps I'm not as persuasive as I hope I am, but I'm not necessarily convinced that I could be more successful if given two more weeks but perhaps if you do, that could be one option is we just come back in two weeks and say hopefully we have a pool by then and then we have to very quickly act to do interviews. A second option is we act just on consideration of reappointment of Michael and so we would for our process have to do an interview and all of that just to deal with that reappointment if we want to reappoint and then leave the other two and then the third option I see, which is an option I'm not a big fan of but recognize might be the most rational option is for us to say we can't take any action at this time. Ask Christine and Michael, I mean not sorry, ask Christine and David and Michael technically because we wouldn't be reappointing him yet to serve through the summer and then of course this responsibility transfers over to the CRC and say to CRC we weren't able to do this. Good luck balls in your court now. I do feel slightly more confident in that because Sarah and I serve on CRC and so we wouldn't be handing it to a committee that's never had to do this. I think the one benefit of Sarah and I being there is we have that sort of background of how this works. So those are what I see as the three options. I'm sure there are more but I want to just, I honestly just want to have a conversation with you all about what you think we should do because we are in a very difficult position right now. So I will open the floor. Please raise your hands if you have thoughts and hopefully we can come to some type of agreement about what our path forward is. Floor is open. I mean essentially, okay, Alyssa, thank you. Okay folks, you had your chance. Here I am. Given the options you just gave us given the lengthy and really frustrating amount of outreach you've tried to do, I agree that I don't think anything magical is gonna happen in the next two weeks. So given that, I think the appropriate tweak to what you just suggested is to have us go ahead and submit to council our recommendation that we reappoint in contrast to our normal process. All three of them, Michael, Christine and David through, I don't know, August 31st, September 30th, whatever you think they might agree to. And that way they are actually appointed. The only thing that makes me concerned about what you said earlier which is absolutely a legal standard that until replaced, except we have had people who were not reappointed, who received letters who said, you're not being reappointed. Thank you very much for your service. And those people did not continue. So it's not like 100% true that people continue because there are circumstances where people are thanked for their service and the seat is left vacant. So that has happened in the past. So given that we don't want any confusion over this and given how much we appreciate that they're continuing to serve and given that there's always the legal question later as to whether or not somebody really should have still been serving. Like if somebody gets sued over this next little time period, it seems most effective to go ahead and reappoint them for a short period of time which I know feels a little funny. I know we just did it with finance committee but it feels a little odd. But if they could come to an agreement as to how long that period is, whether it like through Labor Day or something, then that makes it clear that we really appreciate the three of them. We really want them serving through the summer. Hopefully they can show up for the meetings that need to be done. And then we move on to the next process. It feels really weird to put Michael in the position of having to interview for reappointment when the others don't, right? And so they're all willing to help us out this way. So let's recognize that and just have a short-term appointment. And then what CRC has to deal with is that they've got three reappointments coming up. Two of which have already said, no, maybe they'll change their minds. Hey, anything could happen. And the story continues. But I think suggesting putting forth to town council where we're at and suggesting that we reappoint them just as we in fact just did with finance committee would be the thing to do. It's not, you know, this is not a solution but it's a short-term application of where we're at. Any other thoughts on any of the suggestions including what Alyssa just put forth? George. Just a question for Alyssa. This would be without interviews. We would just reappoint for a short, right? Okay. Yep, super weird, right? Because we just went through this an incredibly elaborate process. George did set the precedent to do that for a very short term. Yeah, with finance. George is the ground breaker. Not happy, I think for any of us. It's disappointing, it's discouraging. There's nothing happy about it but I think Alyssa's suggestion might be the least unhappy option. I don't know, what do others think? Darcy? I have no problems with what Alyssa's suggesting. It seems like they do provide, you know, like I think it would be preferable for the three people in question so that they are clear about their status. Yeah, I agree. Sarah, how do you feel? So I feel a little loath to do this this way but it seems like it makes the most sense. It seems like it makes the most sense and then like you said, I do feel better that two members of OCA are gonna be working on this later on. So it seems like the best solution to me. Great, okay. It's not great, but it's the best solution. Yeah, okay. So then I'm hearing sort of consensus for this idea of recommending just a very short-term appointment for all of the members just to buy some time over the summer. And I of course worry that CRC will find itself having this exact same conversation at the end of the summer because I summer the great time to recruit people. But I do think that we're sort of out of options. So in that case, does anyone, I can offer a motion on this. Does anyone else have any other comments on this? Okay, so then I will move that OCA recommend the town council appoint Michael Burtwistle, David Levinstein and Christine Gray-Mullen to the planning board for terms expiring August 30th, 2020. Do I have a second? Second. Okay, any further discussion or anything you wanna make sure is included in the report about this? Why August 30? I picked the end of summer. Right. Do you have a date you'd prefer? Ah. In that motion? August 31st. I forgot there were 31 days in August. That's what I was wondering. Was there something sacred about August 31? No, I just, I forgot that. That's all right, that's all right. So I would suggest August 31st. I'll go to that friend, how about that? Do you agree to that, Sarah, that friendly amendment? Okay, friendly amendment August 31st because I don't remember my basic months of the year. Um, cool, any further comments? All right, then I will call the question. Alyssa Brewer. Aye. Darcy Dumont. Aye. Evan Ross says aye. George Ryan. Aye. And Sarah Swartz. Aye. Okay, so that is unanimous. And so I will put that in a report and get it to council to be voted on for our June 15th meeting, hopefully. Okay, so that's not how I was hoping to end our appointing authority, but we can only operate within what we get. So that means we're not gonna be doing development of interview questions because we won't be holding interviews in the near future. Certainly what we need on the planning board. So the other thing, sorry, I meant to say this before, but for the report, we did technically pass selection guidance. And so I do wanna make clear that we're going to hand that selection guidance off to CRC. I don't personally feel that they have to use that exact selection guidance. If they are interviewing in August, they can modify it. And the reason for that is that selection, conditions might change. And also that selection guidance was developed before knowing that Christine was stepping off. And so things might change. So I am gonna hand that over to CRC, but my expectation is that even though we adopted that, they're free to also modify it. Okay, so then the only other thing on our agenda, there's two more things, sorry, Alyssa. Well, free to modify it if they want me to vote against their recommendations at town council. Let's, I mean, let's be clear here. We worked really hard to get to this point. I know that you and Sarah will represent that case, but just when we're speaking of this to the public, this is not just, yeah, this is what we did, but do whatever you want. No, there's reasons. And so if they change things, it should be exactly as you said, in response to conditions, not because, you know, we just wanna do this a completely different way because that would require additional justification on their part, as opposed to continuing down the path we've been struggling with for a couple of years now. So we know you'll represent our views here, but I just would like to make sure that the report to the CRC doesn't say, obviously you're free to do whatever you want. I think that would be unspoken at best. Okay, and that's why I wanted to bring it up. I wanted to make sure I had all the thoughts on that before I transferred this over to CRC. Okay, so the next thing on our agenda is somewhat relatedly that OCA process document that we talked about last time. The idea being that this would be OCA's sort of final product to the council, which is when we're dealing with appointment recommendations, here's the process that we worked and tested and refined to do that. And this would be what would be given to CRC to help them in this process, even in the absence of Sarah and I's presence. So when we were last here, we took a look at this document. The two major things that I took away from that conversation about what to change. One was a request that I add a section about writing vacancy notices and also include in the appendices an example vacancy notice. So I have added that. And then the second thing that was requested was that I add the committee handouts. And so I kind of sort of did that. It's appendix G. I didn't add the handouts themselves. I added the links to the handouts. I'm happy to add the handouts themselves. I couldn't find word versions of them and I was having trouble getting the PDF versions into one document. So I can add the actual things because I think I figured that out, but for now I just put the links. But the one thing I noticed when I was putting the links in is I could find very clearly on the planning boards page, the link. And I could find very clearly on the ZDA's page, the link to the handout. But I could not find on anywhere on the finance committee's webpage the handout that we developed. And so I don't know if I was just missing that, but I could not find it. So I could go back into our, George? Let's you and I talk at some other point about how to, I had a, I have a copy of it. And right now I'm not sure I can figure out how I tracked it down. I think I actually tracked it down off the OCA site. Yeah, that's, I actually, I have it. Yeah, I have it, right. And it's, and I got it from our packet from back when we finance committee appointments. But if I was going to set this up with links to the committee handouts, which I actually don't think I should do, I think I should just put the committee handouts right in. But if I did do links, I actually don't see that handout on the website. And so, so yeah, I need the handout, but I guess I am curious if anyone knows if it is actually available to the public anywhere, because I didn't see it. I'll listen. George. All right, listen, I'll listen. I was just gonna say, I doubt that it is. I mean, that, that was a problem we had actually with both planning board and ZBA when we first developed the handout too, is where does it go after we create, after we created it, they made sure it was technically accurate. And then it's, it's featured as you indicated it. It's one place on the planning board site. It's in another place on the ZBA site. And I doubt that finance committee ever thought about putting it anywhere. Cause it just wasn't part of, it's not part of that mindset, right? And so similarly to like literally every other committee we have, most of them don't have their actual charge documents, which a charge is different than a committee handout, right? But in a similar vein, most the vast majority of our committees do not have the actual charge document that was ever voted by the appointing authority. They have summaries and copy and paste and things like that. It's just a structural thing. And so I think it's just a matter of if you're sure it's the one we used, just ask the finance committee to put it someplace so the public can always see it as the public is digging into the finance committee staff, just as the ZBA one needed to be updated to show that we actually did change the zoning by law associated with ZBA. So it's just, it's just a follow through kind of thing. And so I really appreciate that you're gonna find a way to put the actual charges in, not only because of that difficulty in finding it, you could mention that it's usually on the website, but the other part is because we wanna show people what the most recent document was that we used because there is links do get broken and versions do get changed. And so finding a way to insert it, however you will do that is magically on our behalf. We appreciate that. Yeah. And that was sort of my, I had a really boring internal debate with myself about putting the actual handout in this document versus the links and the risk with the link, of course, is that links can get broken very easily once they're moved. The risk with putting the handout in is if the link does stay static every time the document's updated, that the process document would always link to the most up to date committee handout because if it gets changed, then our process document hasn't outdated one. But I think you're right, the actual document is probably better because links are messy. So anyways, so I made the changes that were requested at our last meeting. And I guess I have, I wanna hear from you all about whether this document looks ready for us to send to the council. If there's more things you wanna see changed in it, if there's things that you noticed on another read are missing, thoughts. Is this a new hand or a residual hand? Okay, thank you. Any thoughts on this document? Things you wanna see changed, added, removed? Errors, I don't know. George? I think it's ready for prime time. I think that it's a wonderful gift to the council and to CRC and to all the other bodies that will have to do this. I think it's a fitting sort of summation of long period of hard work by many people on this committee. So I personally think it's ready to go. I don't know how the others feel, but I think it also is a real testament to how hard we've worked and what we've gone through and I hope it gets used well. Okay, thank you, George. Other comments, thoughts, changes on this document? Do we feel like we are ready to vote to send this? Darcy? I just would say that I appreciate all the work you put into it, Evan. You just have an incredible work ethic. And it is complete and extensive. And I obviously am gonna have to vote against it because I voted against a lot of pieces of it as they came along and I just, I'm disappointed that our final product is not as transparent. It doesn't present as transparent a process as I would like to hand to CRC. So I don't have to go into that because I've talked about it a lot in the past, but I do appreciate all the work you put into having a process to hand to another committee. Well, thank you, Darcy. Being single during quarantine has definitely helped that work ethic, produced a lot of work that might not other than that. I get that totally. Okay, so if we feel ready, then I think we can move this to the council. So I can make that motion, which is I move to submit to the town council, the process to recommend appointments to multiple member bodies appointed by the town council developed by the outreach appointments and communication committee. Do I have a second? I can second that. Okay. Any further discussion? Okay. Then I will call the question and we will start this time with Darcy Dumont. No. Evan Ross is yes. George Ryan. Yes. There are Swartz. Yes. And Alyssa Brewer. Yes. Okay. So that is four in favor, one opposed. And then Darcy, for the sake of the report, your opposition, your vote is because of the issues you raised with the process itself, correct? Yes. Transparency in general. Okay. Okay. So the only other thing we actually have on our agenda today are minutes. And we do have somewhat of a backlog of minutes because our last several meetings have been fairly lengthy. And so we have jettisoned our consideration of minutes. So all of our minutes are in our minutes folder. So let me just give them a minute to get there. So we have minutes for March 30th, April 13th and April 27th, which are our regular meetings. And then we have minutes for our April 16th special meetings, one of which was interviews and one of which was deliberation. And I apologize, this is on me. It doesn't look like I have our main meeting in here. So you didn't get a chance to see those and that is 100% on me. I thought I had done that. So I guess we'll start with these minutes here. Did anyone have any, I know it's contacted me with any edits or changes that were needed? Did people get a chance to look at these? I will admit, I will say that the minutes from April 27th are still a little bit drafty. I had intended to go through and edit them and then I'm sorry, it's just been very busy and I did not get a chance to do that. And so we of course can approve them even though I've read through them and they're correct. They're just the formatting is not consistent with what we usually do. So if people don't really care about that then we can approve it. The other option I was going to suggest is for the April 27th and the main minutes is, well, let me say this. For the March 30th, April 13th and April 16th minutes, we could vote as a committee to approve for the April 27th and then the main minutes and we could do, and for the minute for this meeting, we could do what we used to do, which is just I could approve them as chair or I could send them out and say, if you have any edits, send them to me by this date because my thought is given we're now sending the planning board to CRC. We are done with ZBA and we're done with this process. This committee likely won't meet again. And so how do you guys want to do minutes? I think my personal preference is to vote on the ones that I feel like are ready to go, which are not the April 27th. And then for April 27th, May, I think it was May 18th and today's minutes, I could just send them out and say, if you have it, send it back to me, I'll clean them up and then we'll just get them on online as we did in the past. Thoughts on this? So let me understand what you just said, Evan. I'm not completely clear that we'll still have a period of time to look at the minutes and get back to you if we want to make any changes and if not, then you'll approve them. Yeah, I think that that's what I, because I don't intend to call this committee back to me unless there's some pressing thing that pops up all of a sudden. And so my thought is, did people get a chance to look at the April 27th minutes? Because they're just, they're correct. I mean, I read through them, but they're very, the format's just not there yet. And so I don't really care to some extent, but I also do because that's who I am as a person. So my preference would be to hold off on those and then because you haven't even looked at the main ones, but I would want to make sure you had a chance to look at them and give me any feedback beforehand. So yes, that's what I'm suggesting, Darcy. Just for the April 27th? No, April 27th, the May minutes that aren't even in the folder yet. And then I would send all three out once I got the minutes for today's meeting. That sounds reasonable to me. Okay, any other thoughts on this? Okay, are we okay with doing the March 30th, April 13th and April 16th minutes as of today? Okay, cool. So I feel like a lot of things are more complicated than they need to be today, but we're all doing our best. I see a hand from Melissa. I can help fully muck things up at this point. I knew there was something, I knew there was something that was bugging me about the amazing report you wrote on our behalf. And when I was looking for it, I came up with the second thing. So that's why I need to stop reading the report because it's terrific and it stands alone and we just voted on it. I wanna make two quick mentions. One that you can cover because you and Sarah are gonna be there at CRC and the other I think is just a quick add-on. When you wrote so many examples in here, which was amazing, you wrote how to say yes to someone, you didn't give an example of how to say no thank you. We interviewed you, but we're not bringing your name forward. And because that's such an awkward conversation, you might wanna consider, I mean, even though I'm not asking you to change page 14 at this point, you might wanna consider going ahead and offering that up before you get asked for it because you had to use it, right? I mean, that's the reality. We've made a point in this committee of putting that burden on our chairs, insisting that we not just let something fade off into obscurity and they don't know what happened. They get told upfront before the whole world knows who the other people are. So I think that's, I though you said that that's done, I think showing people how it's done is because it was actually a little bit, right? It's a little bit hard to write that email. The other part that I think you could just add as a quick thing that again is similar to our conversation about the handouts is I think there should be a copy of the current CAF in here because I think this report should count as, this was the process, right? I mean, even though in fact, we just changed the CAF five minutes ago, this is the whole thing. And so that when people look back at this, what did that CAF say? It only has those things, but that's just a suggestion for additional appendix. You can just add it once you're at CRC. I just, that was the one, the CAF part was the one that was bugging me that I knew I'd forgotten to mention to you weeks ago. So thanks for your patience on that. Do we want, do members of this committee agree with the list that it'd be useful to add to an appendix, the CAF, and then also an example of what the email telling people they're not being reappointed is, Sarah? Yeah, I actually would, Evan, just because sometimes like the first time you go through it as a chair, I think you and I both did it different ways. So I think maybe saying, and then so like saying like email someone by such and such a date before, it's important that somebody knows and do it before you tell everybody else yes. Like, so an example of an email and then what it says and then the timing of it because I think that's easy to mess up and it really hurts people if we do it the wrong way. So it would help a chair or whoever's gonna do it. Okay, Darcy? Yes, as long as we're throwing in advice about the report after we've already voted on it, it does occur to me that since we promised the council that they would all get a spreadsheet of, people have applied over the last three years maybe in the advice to the chairs, put in annually, make sure that the counselors get this spreadsheet from Angela Mills or whoever is going to give it to them. And that reminds me that we would like to have that now too. So we'll reach out to Angela who's on this call actually later today about a couple of things around that. Okay, great. We were in, so thank you for all of that and I will make sure to put those things in. I don't think that changes anyone's vote on the report. Okay, so we were talking about minutes. And so we were looking at 3.30, 4.13 and the two special meetings on 4.16. So I am going to move to approve the minutes for March 30th, 2020, April 13th, 2020, April 16th, 2020 interviews and April 16th, 2020 deliberation. Do I have a second? Second. Okay, are there any further comments on minutes? Okay, then I will call the question. We'll start with me. I vote yes, George. Yes. Sarah. Yes. Alyssa. Abstain. Ann Darcy. Abstain. Okay, so that is three in favor, zero against and two abstentions. Okay, and so as I mentioned before, what I will do with the remainder, the remaining minutes is send them out to you with a date of please look these over and if you have feedback or I didn't get them back and then I will make those edits and then they will be approved and on the website. So that is our full agenda for today because that's all we have to do. So that means, and this feels very strange to say, but given we have now voted to submit our recommended process to the council for use by CRC and also by the esteemed chair of the GOL committee, now that we have decided that we are not going to be moving forward on planning board appointments due to an insufficient pool, but we're able to and I think, let me say this, there is a part of me that feels sort of down about ending without being able to complete our task on the planning board. I think that we can all agree that that doesn't feel good. However, I will say that I have heard from multiple people who have been shocked that we were able to fill all seven seats on the zoning board of appeals. And so even though I feel like, this is not the way we wanted to end things in that we were not able to accomplish what we needed to for planning board, we were able to put a full bench of people on the zoning board of appeals. And I think that that was also the result of some really intense recruitment efforts because if you remember, we were in a very similar position in February when it came to the zoning board of appeals of not being able to move forward because of insufficient pool. And then we worked hard and we were able to fill all the seats with what I think are some really good people. And as we see that the 132 Northampton Road Project is about to move forward to them, I think that we and the community can be very thankful that we were able to do that because having that robust committee for this is going to be important. And I hope that everyone we appoint stays on the committee even after this. And so what I wanted to say is just thank you to all of you. We've had a number of very long meetings, as you know. We spent four months putting together, well, actually, we should say this way, we spent four months putting together a process and then another four months overhauling that process and then another month refining that new process. And so I don't think there's any committee on the council that has worked so intensely on process and setting up a structure to be successful going forward. And that has not always been easy and it has at times been contentious and it hasn't been the sexy stuff that gets covered in the newspaper all that often. And it's not the stuff that we're gonna be getting praised for, right? Because it's not stuff that a lot of people are interested in, but I think it's important work. And I wanna thank all of you for doing that work and being willing to have so many meetings and engaging in this iterative process with us. So I'm ready to, even though we've never, ever, ever, ever, ever had a meeting this short, I can't think of anything else to make y'all do. And so I don't know if anyone else has any thoughts or comments, but I am ready to adjourn the final meeting of OCA. Did anyone have anything else? Alyssa. Of course I do. I think Darcy does too, or maybe hers is of us jumping in with mine earlier. Here if your hand was residual. This committee has been so frustrating and so productive at the same time, right? Because you spoke it so well, but of course I have to add to it, because that's what I do, is that we not only developed a process, like I'm gonna pick on some other committees, for example, that never used a process that they handed over to TSO. We developed a process, we used it, we refined it, we said this part doesn't work so great, oh my gosh, we didn't think of that. Okay, how's this other thing gonna work? We didn't all agree, but we figured it all out so that we all understood it and we applied it and we did our best to, even though we didn't get a lot of press coverage, to say, this is why we're doing what we're doing. And it got really hard sometimes with the town council in full, to be able to say, do you not understand how many hours we've spent beating this around when they would ask a very innocent question about why we weren't doing something a different way? I think we should be really, really proud of the work we did together and I think we owe a special thanks to Sarah and to Evan for having chaired us through that because we were all new to working together, right? And so now it's like, ah, you know, you guys are in CRC, others of us are on TSO, it's like, it's a very different position we're in than we were when we had to develop such a complex process, not having worked together before. So I think we deserve huge kudos and I wanna again thank Evan and Sarah in particular for their leadership and keeping us together as we got through this, I certainly appreciate staff support, but I feel bad that a committee that's worked this hard is, well, you know, I'm not happy this committee is dissolving. A committee that's worked this hard is just kind of fading away, but I prefer to try and think of it as we did amazing work and now others can learn from us and we can move on to other tasks. So thank you. Thank you, Alyssa. And yes, I also wanna make sure, because you touched on it that I think, especially Angela, who I know is on this call, who has spent a lot of time working with me to collect all the CAF for all of our appointments and who also fielded, when I first started chairing, when it was a little new, some very last minute Thursday morning, oh my God, this needs to be posted in the next 15 minutes or we can't hold the meeting emails and who sat on the phone with me on New Year's Eve collecting community activity forms. So thank you so much, Angela. And also Athena, who especially during this COVID era where posting meetings is much more complicated, dealt with a pretty high volume of meeting requests when it came to April and the ZBA interviews. And so I think staff also deserves some gratitude. George. I just don't want it to end. This is so sad, you know, I don't know what I'm gonna do. I wanna echo Alyssa's comments that we are much in debt to both Sarah and Evan. We've been blessed with two strong chairs and that makes a lot of difference, makes all the difference I think, but it's been a pleasure and a pain, but mostly pleasure. And like all of you for all that you've done and we'll see what happens in the next iteration. Thank you, George. Dossi. I just wanna say that I thought the high point of our actions and our relationship was the ZBA interviews and decision around that because I thought that was a really good, good day for us. And I also wanna mention that or just ask that I think Alyssa looks like a religious icon with that gold halo around her head. So we definitely have to listen to her. Thank you, Dossi. And I agree that that's why even though I feel sort of, there's a part of me that feels upset that we're not be able to do the playing board thing. I think we should be really proud about ZBA because we did something that Alyssa can tell us is impressive in filling every seat. And we also did it in a way that was really collaborative and work together and I think put together a really strong balance to ZBA going forward. So I think we thank you. Okay, well then, if there are no further comments, I am going to adjourn us for the final time at 10.22 a.m. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you, everybody.