 All right, so I am I've seen the presence of a quorum I'm going to call this meeting of governance organization legislation to order. It is March 31 and it is 1032 a.m. And pursuant to Governor Baker's March 12 2020 orders is banning certain provisions of the open meeting law. This meeting of GOL is being conducted by remote participation, and we are being recorded. I'm just going to check. Actually, I know this for a fact, but I'm going to do it anyway to make sure everybody can hear and be heard Mandy, and Pat, and Sarah present and Darcy. Yes, great. So everyone is here and can be heard. So we've I think our first item today is just to set the agenda. So I have an agenda actually I'll put it up on the screen. I can do this that's good practice for later in the meeting. Let's see here. Oh, I see what it's going to do. Okay. All right, that's not good. Hang on for a second. I have to do this apparently first. I could be reading George. I understand. I understand. There's so many things that could be doing. So let me try this again. Let's try this again share screen. There we go. So I have to open it first. Okay. So here is the agenda for today's meeting. It's a full agenda, but there are going to be a few changes I think I'm not going to item number four stormwater and ID bylaw we will touch it on it this morning but only briefly. I really invite that Wilson and I think that Wilson should be present when we do the review so we are meeting next week April 7 believe it or not we agree to that schedule. So we have another meeting next week Beth is already on the notice and she will be here, but we will talk about number four briefly it's going to stay where it is, but we'll not spend a lot of time on it. What else I have placed item eight emotion take off the table what we were talking about last time. And I think Darcy would like that to come earlier in the meeting so I'm going to bring that right to the attention of the committee to start. And Darcy why don't you just make the motion to take something off the table. Now. Well, I you I think we should do it and decide I think we need to decide. I know I was to get to go to it first and have the discussion assuming the committee wants to do that. And we could wait till item seven or excuse me item eight in the agenda. I think we'll get there. I think it's good to do it now I'm ready with emotion. Yeah I think so so the first motion that I think would be an order would be a motion to take something off the table and I can actually put that up on the screen. Well, so I'm going to stop that share. I'm going to close that file. Open this file. And there are two motions here. Okay, share screen. One second. Okay, so we have two motions on the screen. Let me know if they're not large enough I can make them bigger. So Darcy the first motion if you wish. Yeah, the first motion is just to take the issue off the table so I moved to take off the table the issue of whether there should be a unified town council procedure. Regarding term limits of appointment of members of the planning board zoning board of appeals and resident members of the finance committee. Okay, we have a motion is there a second. I'll second it. Okay, we have a second. All right, so we have a motion we have a second discussion. All right, with your motion please. Yeah, I just want I, we brought this up at the last meeting. I know that there was some, some desire to hear the views of everybody on the committee, Sarah wasn't able to come the last time because she was ill. And I know there was some some expression that we wanted to hear what she thinks. I'd like to, obviously, I'm very interested in this issue and I feel like it's to some degree time sensitive so I'd like to put it back on the table and see if we can deal with the larger issue today. Just to get a recommendation back to the full console. Okay. Any other comments from the committee on this, Sarah, please. Oh, I, George, you and I have talked about this ad nauseam for a little time. I mean, so much maybe Joe. Same thing I mean I don't think there's too many people in Amherst who don't know how I feel about this whole issue. I'm beginning to feel that I'm in the minority in it but I, I feel like we talk a lot about in the United States of America about a level playing field about being able to make sure that anyone, no matter who they are no matter what color they are what race they are whatever has a fair shot at something. I strongly feel that when it comes to anything we need to talk about this because I feel like the public should know that there are equal rules that would allow someone to have a chance at getting on planning board or ZBA. And I think there should be a process that's uniform. I think there should be questions that are uniform I think that there should be. Somebody should know how they can get on ZBA or planning board and they should also know if they hired how that God bless you, they should stay at. So I'm going to interrupt you for a second and I beg your pardon, but I think right now all we're trying to figure out is whether we want to take this off the table. You're making a strong argument for I think what would come next, which would be some kind of recommendation, but clearly it sounds what you're saying is you would like this taken off the table. So you can address the larger issue. So, I think I'd hold off on that argument for a moment just to see whether the committee wants to take this off the table at this point. And so, are there reasons why this should be taken off the table. One would be clearly that you did weren't here and didn't get a chance to talk about it. And so it sounds like you very much like to talk about it. So, are there any other reasons why you'd like to take this off the table or is that essentially it's important issue and you want to talk about it. Yeah, I had mono and I wasn't able to be here. Absolutely. Well, I know but I think that sometimes there can be a perception that I just didn't want to be here or I've had something more important to do. But this is something that is near and dear to my heart and I, I guess I'm not done arguing. Okay, exactly. Okay, so you would like fun. Mandy. There were a couple of reasons I moved to table at last time and one was because Sarah was not here. He is now here so that reason is gone. The reason I made the motion was because I felt like we were getting too close to the actual appointment process. You know, when CRC and I think Sarah was on the committee at the time CRC had recommended GL, the Council moved this to GL that was last fall, when there weren't appointments on the table, there weren't processes happening. And I can tell you right now that this week. The bulletin board notice is likely to go up for both planning board and ZBA. The, the handouts that needed updated on the web page are being updated today. The procedure that has been adopted said when there is a vacancy or impending vacancy the chair shall cause that notice to go up. I've been in contact with CBA applicants that have prior submitted their CAF I've already been in contact with those that are currently on the board whose terms are up including at the planning board and ZBA. The CRC is set to take this up to move the process start moving the process forward in on April 13 that it's meeting. We've already been trying to schedule the interview dates. But even if we moved today to finalize some sort of recommendation or not, the council won't take it up until April 12 rules, if being changed, need read it to different meetings under our rules of procedure. The next meeting is mid May at that point CRC and I don't know what the finance committee, or GOL's plan is with finance committee but at that point CRC will likely have already been really in contact with procedure have already been discussing questions and have already adopted its procedure. So I still am of the opinion that doing so this late in the season or right so close to when things are happening at the committee level is too late. I do want to finalize something, but I'm concerned that it will be done and be a change will be made mid process and that's not good either. So I don't support taking it from the table at this time. I do support taking it from the table in July or August when appointments again are done. Your hand is up. I would respond to that though because I think that if the council decided on a unified process all CRC would need to do is notify applicants that this was in the works that it may not have been finalized yet but they should be on notice that this this may be a change. So I don't I don't see any problem there. All right. Any other comments on this matter of whether we want to take this off the table now. The chairs of two minds here. I think that Mandy raises a very good point that we're getting very close to and we're going to have to decide today actually a later meeting hopefully when we have time, what we're going to do going forward with our vacancy which we do have one they can see on finance. So I'm a little concerned about the timing, but I'd also like to have this resolved. I don't also feel that this is a deeply divided committee. I don't know whether it's three two or two three or what it is but it's I don't think a recommendation is going to come out. That's going to be a four one or a five zero. That may not matter. But generally speaking when you see a recommendation coming from a committee that's this divided. It doesn't have much force or its forces certainly diluted. And so that's also a concern that I'd like if a recommendation were to come from this committee I'd like to be one where we could reach some kind of consensus or at least broad consensus. And I think at this time right now that's not possible. It might be possible later in the summer when we have more time to think and talk about it. But now it seems to me that that's probably not going to happen. And I don't really want to take the entire meeting to get to that point. So I guess I'm really divided here between a desire to get this settled and a desire to not interfere with processes that are already underway and one that hopefully will begin very soon in our committee. So, I see Sarah's hand up. I think that if it's truly the concern that we would start messing with the process that's already ongoing and that there are dead I know there are deadlines to meet for certain things in the process that it would it would it would definitely probably monkey with it if if it was changed midstream. I'm not saying that it couldn't be resolved but I understand the concern. And I, I feel like it's also just, I feel like in some ways it's it's kind of. I don't know, like a paper excuse like this is not what we believe in so we might as well just, you know, we'll get to it later maybe it'll get passed off maybe it won't. I think this whole issue is something that's really important because I think that we're seeing counselors who have said out loud that this is the appointments to planning board and DBA are political. And they don't, they don't need any rules about who they're going to put in they've outright said they'll put in who they want. I have a real problem with that as far as whether or not that's actually democracy and we have an election coming up. And I think that this. I think that's appointed to ZBA and planning board and how they get appointed is really, really important it's integral to it's integral to zoning it's integral to our master plan it's it's not nothing. And I think that, you know, I think it's important that the entire council and think it's important that it be brought to attention of people who are voting again, how this council feels about it how counselors feel about it and what the ramifications are. And I know that's not popular and I'm not trying to pick a fight it's just honestly and genuinely how I feel. Okay. Your hands up is that. Go ahead. No, it's residual. Okay. Right I think we should go to a vote unless there's any. Any other council wishes to speak who hasn't spoken. And again Darcy your hand is still up so I'm going to ask me. All right. I'm not sure I can do that either but can the post take care right now we're in share screen so I think that might be the problem, at least it is for me. I can't control anything. All right, then I'm going to go immediately to vote on this is simply a vote on whether we want to take off the table. The item that we were discussing last time. And so I'm going to begin with Darcy. And Mandy. No. And Pat. I. Okay, and Sarah. I. And the chair is a no for what it's worth, but it's three to so the motion is taken on put back on the table. And now we can have discussion on this motion which I think. I guess Darcy, I'm going to have you just introduce it and speak to it. And then we'll use this as the focus for our discussion. So. All right, that sounds good. So this is it at our last meeting. I think that was a document in the packet that was in the, in the referral from CRC, which gave a, an example of all the different term limits policies of, of OCA of GOL of CRC and of the town manager. And so I, I looked at those and. I basically went mostly with the OCA. Rule around term limits. So this is just, just confined to the, the, the process around reappointments to planning board zoning board of appeals and resident members of the finance committee. And whether or not a preference should be given to someone who has served under six years one or one term. So I'm just going to go through it. And, and explain if there are differences from that OCA policy. So the first sentence is generally if a member of the planning board zoning board of appeals or a resident member of the finance committee has completed a first term. They're given preference and reappointment for a second or third term for at least six years. So I think that's the advantage of the experience and expertise gained and to honor the voluntary time commitment of members. As long as the member is an active contributing member of the board or committee. Now, at our last meeting. The board had expressed reservations about members who maybe are quiet all the time, never speak up. Don't contribute. So I added that in to deal with that issue of non participating members or maybe at, you know, absenteeism, although I think there's, there is, there are other issues that I have for absenteeism. So, I did add the, the actual limit of six years because of the fact that it came up in OCA. And Alyssa at that time suggested that we just make a statement that normally. The extent of terms is two three year terms and that's in the OCA language. So that it made it clear that it you can't, you know, to one year terms is not the equivalent of two three year terms so it, it just made sense to be clear that what we're talking about is six years. And then the second sentence is conversely, if a person has completed two three year terms or three two year terms, and there are other qualified applicants. Preference would be given to a newcomer in cases where special training or expertise is required longer periods of service may be appropriate. So that last sentence is is I think in all of the different rules that have been put out. I, GOL mentions two year terms OCA mentions three year terms so I put both of them in there because to make sure that people understood that it could be a difference I mean, but that the total where where the where the where the flip would be would be at six years. And then the balance would be that we really want more, we want to look for new members after six years so it's a balance between really valuing the experience that takes a long time to build up and the need for diversity and new newcomers. So, I, you know, I am strongly in favor of this because I want, you know, I, because it makes sense, because it allows people with experience to stay and as I said at our last meeting, I supported, I've supported people who I didn't agree with politically, because they had experience as resident members of the finance committee. So I'll step there for right now I may have more to say later, but I will let other people speak. I'm waiting for people raise their hands. And you can use the race and feature just raise your hand. I can see everyone. Sarah. I don't support this because I feel like Oka tried really hard to come to a middle ground when we talked about this, because obviously there are political aspects of this. I don't think there should be, but obviously, there are. And having one process the town council follows that, that has some rules about how long a term limit is or how long it isn't. And what makes a member a contributing member is very important it it establishes some level playing field and no, no ever no matter what political view is in majority that there's still a chance that someone who is not a favorite of a certain party and that's either and let's just cut to the chase I mean, I guess it's true it's there counselors have said too bad so sad, this is political, and we'll do what we want. I'm a minority and that's okay, but I think that we need people to feel like no matter how what their views are they have a chance to serve in town government. And I think that this rule, it levels a playing field no matter who is in majority it levels a playing field for for people who are in the public who want to serve on boards that are not elected. I think that. That's clear consistent and actionable enough. Mandy. So a couple of things first to the first to my opinion on just the whole thing and then I want to talk about some of the language in it. I can't vote for it. We were elected, we were elected to use our own beliefs, our own judgment, and our own judgment to make a determination as to who we best thought or think should be appointed to these three bodies. There are 13 individual members, and this language takes away our individual abilities to make those judgments because it. When I read it I really believe it says, if they've been there they need appointed again no matter what you think. And that is not something I was elected to do. It's not something that someone who was appointed to a three year term this summer. Or two year term this summer to finance that someone who was elected in the fall and takes office in January should be told they have to do when they had no at all no say in who was originally appointed because they weren't on the committee. They weren't on the council. I don't think it's right for us to hamstring our own individual members on what they can and cannot do and can and cannot think on appointments, and I truly believe this language does. I think it's up to us as individuals the reason we have these appointments particularly planning board and ZBA I will say Sarah I agree it's a political issue and that's what the Charter Commission was thinking when they gave these appointments to the council. They, they have to be appointed they can't be elected, and the Charter Commission believed that it needed to be as close to the electorate as possible because they were political. This language and this adopting this rule would say that if the planning board does something that the entire town disagrees with. And the council does something on zoning that the entire town disagrees with when they all come up if the council is completely turned over and reelected and new members are put into the council because of that say zoning change, and people didn't want it and they want it. You know rescinded and planning board appointments come up this language would prevent prevent those people who were just elected by the council to change that zoning from changing the members of the planning board. And I just can't agree with that on the language itself. What someone believes is a contributing member is totally subjective. So that language to me is not clear, because it's completely subjective what does active contributing member actually mean. Second or third term for at least six years has completed a first term we have a lot of people who get appointed to finish out another term. This language is not clear as to what happens with them when they say, you know, ZBA has a unexpired term for one year coming up. We'll have to appoint someone to that unexpired term when they come up for potentially reappointment in a year, and they won't reappointed that this language fits that but what when they come up for reappointment for three years after that. What applies because there is state law that says for unexpired terms they must be three years we can't do what counselor brewer likes to say is and say pick whatever term you want it doesn't always have to be three the state law says unless it's an unexpired term. It needs to be three years, and state law says if it isn't an expired term it can only go as long as that on expired term. So in that sense this language is also prevent is also problematic because it doesn't deal with those that have started with unexpired terms. So I'll stop there for now. Okay. I'm new pet. Mandy I couldn't hear the last part of your when you were saying state law about unexpired terms and so could you just repeat that I couldn't hear it. Yeah, so state law, there are two sections one deal with appointments to planning board and one dealing with appointments to zoning board of appeals that says if someone if there's an unexpired term out there. The first appointment that is made is to fill the unexpired term up to the time that term would expire, which means zoning board as we know just had a resignation that term expires June 30 2022 when we appoint someone to that unexpired term we can't say oh it goes three years. We have to say it only goes to June 30 2022 under state law. Yeah, okay. Okay. Thank you. Actually, I want. I'm sorry. Please. I don't. I hear what you're saying Mandy about given preference, you're defining it in a specific way that I don't agree with. Because no, you're given preference it's like giving in a way, if you had a scale that you were using maybe you'd get a point for already being there but I think that I, I don't feel that I have to vote for someone who is been on for a year or has had a single and I feel like I try to evaluate that person and would make a decision and it wouldn't control how I would vote. So I don't agree with you there. And in terms of so I think that's and the idea of what is a contributing member. Yeah, that is subjective and and I'm also, I guess I'm also feeling like preference is subjective. So I don't feel trapped by this in the way that you're describing it. I'm going to go ahead. Yeah, my, my hand is just perpetually up and I do not know why. I don't want to speak. I mean, if you like this, if I want to speak. Okay, fair enough. Sarah, before you speak actually I want to, I actually have some sympathy with. I mean the language that we're presented with here, I think that's put a finger on it. I don't know if it's your preference, but it still leaves it up to the individual member of the committee. And eventually the individual member of the council to weigh other factors it doesn't what I was afraid of and will resist completely is any kind of ironclad sort of statement that you know once appointed. You basically can be reappointed no matter what. But this does not do that. And actually the language of this motion is pretty much the language that we follow in finance. So when we sit down, and I assume in a couple of weeks or a month or so, and review our own selection criteria. I'm pretty sure it's going to be pretty much this kind of language we will give a preference to people have already served for pretty much the reasons that are stated here. And so, I guess, I'm struggling with Mandy we do thought this somehow this locks us in. I could, as Pat said I could easily be in a situation where someone is served for three or four years or whatever, and for whatever reason, in spite of this language, I could decide not to vote to support them. And I hopefully could say why do I think all of us with the knowledge, at least I would say for myself that there are sometimes situations where you simply are reluctant to state explicitly what your reservation is out of respect for the people that you are dealing with. And I'm not sure that's a good thing or a bad thing. But I'm wondering if possibly this language does find a kind of common ground or at least a middle point where one is still free to vote. It's a preference it's not it's just it's as Pat said it's scalar it's not absolute. And if you have a point system, maybe you get two points for the fact that you've been on the committee, and you've been, and I think contributing member Mandy quite frankly, it is always going to be subjective right. Basically, we reach out and we ask, you know, the chair, we, you know, through the grapevine, we find out, you know, is this person, you know, active, do they participate. Are they, are they, you know, contributing member or not. And I think that is important information, but I don't think it's that hard to find out. So I don't have a problem with that language either. I do want to make sure that the language is clear. So the issue about people who have like a year term, and then they get reappointed for two more years or three more years. You certainly could have a situation I think we might have had it more recently, where someone if they were reappointed would actually have gone beyond six years of service. And that would seem to me to be, and it was in my mind at the time, a reason one reason among a number of reasons why I was not willing to support that particular candidate. So, six years seems like a reasonable amount. We're certainly free to go beyond that. And the comment about expertise or training I mean that really is somewhat. I don't want to say big, but it's there. So many please. So one definition of preference is favor given to a person. You know, favor shown to one person or thing over another or others. I don't interpret it as all else, you know, you could say all else being equal, you have to pick this person that's what preference means. The question is what does all else being equal mean, right. Which is why I actually think it takes away our ability to judge stuff because, first of all, all else being equal is is under but it is, despite what Sarah says of we need something that is democratic and all. I'm specifically saying by using the word preference we're going to favor someone over someone else, simply because they sat on the board for three years and might have been a contributing member depending on what your idea of contributing member is, and I really think that when I have to put a bulletin board posting out that says, oh hey, we have an impending vacancy but you know we have to give preference to someone that's already sitting in that seat. Are we really going to get people applying for that are we really going to expand our knowledge of who wants to do stuff I really think some sort of language like this, not only hampers the council but does tell residents that might have just moved here don't bother applying because we're going to give preference to the person who's already there. And, and that could happen depending on when these seats come up for six years in a row. For seven years in a row, it could just you might appoint and then the next new non-preferenced opening could be six years later. I don't think that's what we want. Sarah. I'm mute, please. Absolutely. Thank you. So, here it is. We first this council was brand new. We had our first appointments process and we had to try to figure out some rules and a process. I'm going to say that at that time. There were people who definitely had a preference for certain people. As made to Joe says you should be able to use your own judgment, and they definitely weren't crazy about other people. And at that point, the, a lot of the people who are arguing that arguing right now that six years, can you imagine, well, people who had been on for pretty long time, we're asking to be on a lot longer and the same people who are telling me, well, that's just crazy are the people that were saying, I don't know, we should have people on for at least 12 years because we need at least 12 years to even have, you know, for them to even have some expertise and why should we even have training. I think that I'd like to just cut it down to what it is. And this is what I would like to draw attention to. Is that, you know, maybe, maybe we shouldn't have any rules right because what I'm hearing is I will change or bend what I think about term limits, or what I think about somebody being a good candidate. I will do that by my own political preference and that is my right and that's why I was elected. And that's it. And any argument that I gave about that person might be a little bit of smoke and mirrors. I can tell you when I first started that OCA process and I sat there. I, in my negativity of thinking what what how things worked was that it shouldn't be that way that there we should be listening to other people and people should have a chance and I honest to God just sat there and tried to figure out what made a strong committee. I really did. I am not joking when I say that. So I guess I just mostly want to, you know, I guess I do want to bring this to a discussion and be completely honest so that people know, right, either we're a council that wants to listen to other views that we want when we go into a discussion, you know, we're open to listening to another person, maybe we would be moved by it, or we're just saying, look, this is real life. We're elected by the people, and we will do what we feel the people that elect us want us to do. I just, for me, I have a differing opinion, and I just want to bring it out there. That's what most of the counselors are saying, I just then let's put it on record. This is how the council feels, and this is what we're doing. And I guess maybe that would, you know, take away a lot of, you know, fruitless discussion later when it's not really a discussion. I want to raise, if I may, the question of recruitment and get the thoughts of my colleagues on that. I think Mandy raises a problem that I'm certainly thinking about right now. I'm looking at, you know, someone are, you know, on finance that we they'll be vacancy quote unquote, but given our current language, which is pretty much this language. We would normally give preference to someone who is continuing for the reasons that are stated here, assuming they've been a contributing member. In other words, they've come to the meetings they've engaged the chair, you know says they're fine. You watch the meeting or two and you think okay you know that's true that's what I see. And experience matters I think we can't have it both ways you can't say that, you know, experience doesn't really matter and then experience doesn't matter I think we agree that the three bodies that we're looking at. There's a learning curve. The chair has been very explicit about finance there's a steep learning curve. And so I would be very reluctant to take somebody off of finance. After two years, unless they're very good reason simply because they've not two years under the belt. So, what about the issue of recruitment though when we put out we're going to put out a notice in a couple weeks for a vacancy that according to our own language is really not assuming and again it's a big assumption I mean the person applies for, you know, wants to continue. We're going to go through this whole rigmarole. And in fact, it's extremely unlikely for that can see that we would replace them. What about recruitment, how do we, how do we, you know, the other approaches, you know, we look at each appointment in the whole in total. And so there's no guarantees, there's no guarantee that just because you've been on this body for two years or three years or four years that you're going to get reappointed. We certainly take it into consideration. It's certainly valuable. We might even call it a preference, but bottom line, we're going to make a decision based on the strength of the candidates that are applying and the state of that committee at the moment. And, you know, so it's still an open question. So those are two very different ways of thinking about it. And the issue of recruitment when you honestly go to somebody and say should I apply to finance. Should I apply to planning board. And what do I say, say for finance what do I say, you know. I just say yes, even though I know that the chances of anyone getting that appointment are very, very slim. So I do have an issue about recruitment. And I wonder if the other approach, which says, you know, yes, it matters experience matters. Yes, there's a preference for that. But bottom line is we're going to look at each appointment in total we're not going to just, you know, basically guarantee it. Let's start. Let me start with I didn't see the hands in order. So, first, okay, she's first, go ahead. I just want to point out that that we are them. The PRC policy is a big change. It is very different from what the other committees came up with, and what the town has historically done for many, many years, as far as this preference has been there forever. And as George said, and others have said, it does it, you know, the town and these committees did not put it in place because it's an, it's, it's an in stone requirement, it does have a fudge factor. As everybody mentioned, and the town would never have had it and it's a handbook if it didn't. So, I guess, I feel like all the people, you know, like the people who are composed of the original OCA committee, the time council members, the people that are on this committee came up with different rules from what CRC came up with. 10 counselors, I think that came up with a different rule that a rule that's more like what I have here. That does have this preference. And as George said in our last meeting that he felt like that do else procedure is the most humane one out there, which I agree with. So, I guess I feel like I, I don't really understand what we're arguing about it feels like, like it's, it's all about an upcoming planning board appointment, and that we're worried about that. There's one member of the planning board that has a minority opinion out of seven people, and that I have a hard time understanding why we are going through this about that, because I don't even understand why we wouldn't want to have a diversity of voices on the planning board. So that's those are two different issues there. But I just feel like we need to, we need to move this issue on to the full council because it's broader than this group. Again, I'm going to go with Pat. Pat, you need to unmute that. I had it off, which was good because I got a telephone call. You would have been, it would have been ringing in your ears. I do forget. I'm going back to the last time we selected a resident for finance committee. The choices had come down to Mary Lou Tileman for me, or Bernie Kubiak and Mary Lou had incredible experience on finance. But I went with Bernie Kubiak because he was bringing an aspect of municipal finance work that was different than the experience Mary Lou had. And so while the preference would have gone to Mary Lou, I voted for someone else. That's my job as a counselor. My job as a counselor is to evaluate who is applying and who I think would be a valuable member of a committee. And so, you know, the bottom line is you do need to look at each appointment. I don't think this affects recruitment at all. I think people who are interested in these committees apply. I honestly don't see, but I do see a pushing away of minority voices. And in this instance, I'm not talking about racial minorities. I'm talking about differences in opinion around planning or zoning. And I've seen that happen since we were counselors in the beginning. I don't. So I feel perfectly comfortable maintaining this rule the way it is. And I think that there's so many scare tactics out where it's going to affect recruitment or, oh, people aren't going to think they can do the job if they have to do this. They can't do the job and they won't apply to be counselors and that's all of those things I find are scare tactics. I'd rather go with the facts and I have not seen recruitment affected by this. A couple of things. I'm going to go back to our new council because we changed a form of government in town. One of the biggest things the Charter Commission heard about changing the form of government and things that we needed to address was appointments to planning board and ZBA because no one was happy with how they were working in the past. I mean, and arguing that we need to do this now because that's how we've always done it to me is something that is just an invalid argument because we're in a new system and we don't have to do things the way we've always done it and in fact, we should be looking seriously at not doing some things the way we've always done it because of the issues that the old way had, and people weren't happy with. As to recruitment. I respect what you've said Pat in your belief that it won't affect it, but you're not the one having to write the emails that say, are you still interested while knowing about a preference like this and asking people to submit a statement of interest that it's been a long time to write to come to an interview with at the GOL for finances a 15 minute commitment, but for zoning board and planning appeal, the plants for zoning board of appeals and planning board, depending on the number of applicants that are there could be multiple members because they're done in tandem all at the same time with if we have 10 applicants everyone answers the first question then everyone answers the second, then everyone answers the third, and if the result is a fair complete or believe to be a fair simply, I think that's in frankly rude to the people that are not the reappointment members. And so, I guess I just seriously have problems with the wording preference, because I think it does send a message to people who aren't on the board that says if you're not there already until there's an open position and an open seat, you don't have a chance whether or not that's actually the case I feel like that's the message it sends. And I will say my, if we were going to have a role my role would be there aren't any rules, frankly, that each counselor makes their own decision I would not have the Council determine term limits I would not have the Council make any statement regarding appointments and now we have to by charter advertise these positions as vacancies. And that is something the Charter Commission felt was absolutely necessary in order to bring new people into government. And so my position would be, we don't, and I say this is someone who takes very seriously the idea we need different opinions on committees. And just tries to comply with that and one of the very first votes on committee appointments did comply with that. I'd like to to wrap this up and move to vote. One thought I'm having, which I think Darcy's expressed earlier and maybe Sarah as well but, and I don't know if Pat would agree but there might be some merit simply having this brought to the Council for the Council to finally make a decision as a body. And so that in itself is a reason for me to see this go forward, because there are clear divisions here. I myself am feelings at the moment that this is fine. I hear Mandy's arguments I hear concerns, but I think when I think about this. I think there is a preference given to people who have been serving on these bodies, and that probably should just be stated. But it does not say that that they're guaranteed. And I could imagine a situation where someone has quote unquote preference and Pat's given an example. I think Darcy's given an example to where someone has quite a preference but you make a different decision, and you can explain why you can articulate it. I mean, I was concerned about our hands being tied I don't think this ties our hands. I'm still worried about recruitment but I think Mandy put her finger on it. That's because I'm going to have to write the email to all these people, you know, but I think they're, I can find ways to do this, including reaching out to people and saying to them, exactly what this means it's it's it's not. It's not a done deal it's not a slam dunk, but in all honesty, if you've been serving on on these three bodies, and you have done a credible job. I don't have a preference on, but at the same time, someone could thank you know I just don't like what Smith's been doing on the ZBA or I don't like what Smith's been doing on planning board. I really don't like what Smith's been saying on finance, and I'm going to vote against Smith. And I think, as Pat said, you're perfectly free to do that. So, it sounds like this is something that the council needs to decide. And this sort of, I think, Prince presents it pretty clearly. And I know Mandy will make her argument, and others will make their arguments. I'm not looking forward to us taking up the time. But that's the nature of our job. I mean, I think, you know, that's not really a very good reason not to do this. So, I'm leading in support of it, simply to move it forward as a recommendation, and then let the council decide as a body whether they really want to do this or not. So that's where I'm sitting at the moment. Motion George. I believe I don't ever made the motion. I don't think you have actually so yes. Okay, I move to recommend the town council amendments rules of procedure to add section 10.10 is written below reappointment of members of the planning board zoning board of appeals and resident members of the finance committee. Term limits. You have to say something like what regarding term limits. That would probably need to be clarified, but reprimand of members of the planning board zoning board of appeals and resident members to finance committee. I don't think there's any term limits in the matter of term limits. Okay. I don't think a semi colon's going to work there. Regarding term limits. So generally if a member of the planning board zoning board of appeals or resident member of the finance committee has completed a first term they're given preference and reappointment for a second or third term for at least six years to take into account the importance of the experience and expertise gained into honor the voluntary time commitment of members as long as the member is an act of contributing member of the board or committee committee conversely if a person has completed to three year terms or three two year terms and there are other qualified applicants preference would be given to a newcomer in cases where special training or expertise is required longer periods of service may be appropriate. That is the motion is there a second. And the actual is the actual seconds. All right. We've had a pretty thorough discussion. I'm concerned about the language is there any concerns but the language of this motion from the sponsors or from any member of the committee. Any further discussion concerns, Mandy please. Sorry, I was just made a co host so I can't actually raise my hand under the panelist section now. I'm still concerned that there's nothing in here that clarifies what happens when it would deal with the partial terms and everything. All of that is why don't we just add a second or third term or for an unexpired term for at least six years. If a person is completely for a second or third term or for an unexpired term. Or at least six years. Well the unexpired they'd still, I guess it's has completed a first term that's not necessarily defined is a first term a full term is it a partial term in a second or third term. Are they complete terms are they not complete terms it's just it to me it's, it's not clear multiple places in here are not clear regarding what happens if someone served a partial term, even the conversely if a person has completed two three terms or two or three two year terms relates only to full terms not to any partial terms. And it just doesn't deal with an instance that we regularly see, which is partial terms. And then, I guess, my, my issue with the last sentence is, we're, this report refers to only three boards which I believe many counselors have argued all three are cases where special training and expertise is required. And so is it really a six year limit is it not it that that sentence applies to all three boards and leaves it unclear. I'm bumbling around here with the partial term. So it's. If Mandy Joe resigns from GOL. And I get appointed to replace her and she has a year left of her term, I'm we, I'm taking her term. So it's ended at the end of that first year any term that I would begin after that would be on my own it would not be fulfilling someone this term. So, as I said I'm bundling here I'm not I'm not sure how to write it I don't like what you're filling is a very specific term. So if you then apply independently. Should that be counted against you. I don't. It seems that the basic idea is that six years is considered sufficient time for someone to serve on one of these bodies give or take. Well no it just it's that seems to be the magic number and whether it's it's you know so we've had a situation where someone served a one year partial term, and then they served. What was it to two year terms, and now they want to serve another term for two years and that would have made them seven years. And, and I think one could easily say fine and just vote for them recommend them. One could also using this language, say that well you know we do give a preference for people. Up to six years but after that we start looking for newcomers. And so, I'm not sure the partial term is really that much of a problem because, as long as it's clear to all of us here, including Mandy, that and I'm not sure it is that basically this is this you know we're looking at six years and beyond that, however it stacks up where there's partial term full terms whatever it is beyond six years. We are going to give a preference to a newcomer. So that's the way I read this. Maybe that's not a lot simpler if it really is just six years because the conversely could probably be read something like if a person has if reappointment would. You don't know whether it is but you don't have to deal with two three year terms or three two year terms you could talk about would exceed six years on a border committee. Then, and there are other qualified applicants preference would be but the question is, is it if the new appointment would exceed six years or is it once they've served six years. This is this is where it's very unclear when does that preference stop when the new appointment would put you past six or when you've already been past six or at six. Hi, can I just talk. Sorry. Sorry, Pat. No, Sarah had her hand. I'm sorry, Sarah. It's okay. What I'm just going to say is I'm comfortable with just saying. If a person has completed six years of service on a committee preference would be given to a newcomer, but then this last line becomes critical in cases where special training or expertise is required longer periods of service may be appropriate. Let me interrupt you for a second. I think you would agree and again, you will I know that these all three of these bodies fit that description so either the sentence just comes out, because it is with pointless. Or we, you know, because it's not in cases where in all three cases, right special training expertise is required we don't put somebody on finance, if they don't have some kind of financial background. I think that with somebody, you know, is only in planning board I think is tougher. And there I think, you know, do you have to be an architect or, you know, I think the answer is no. So, yeah. If someone if you want to remove the final sentence, I'm fine with that I don't actually like that sentence. I put it in there, because that's been in all the versions. That's another fudge factor, you know, I'm sorry, go ahead, Sarah. I think that we we really talked about this in Oka, and I think that what we really felt was what we came down to was like, basically, even if you were serving out a term. Was it six years? Was it 12? Was it 16? And I think that it's true that I think that all of us felt like six years in total was the point at which somebody, you know, the committee itself or the board might then be healthier if someone after six years, you know, maybe was replaced by someone new so I'm fine with saying six years I don't really think I need to. And I know that it comes from an actual law we have in Massachusetts so I would be fine even to if we wanted to just put, you know, refer to that law but say six years, I don't know. I'm fine with the six years part and I definitely think that if we're that we are talking about all three and I'm fine with that as well. It shouldn't be it shouldn't be consecutive because imagine somebody serves for say five or six years to step aside, and then a few years later they come back. Right. So, I don't think we would turn them down because they served a bunch of years back for six years. That makes sense. Isn't it consecutive years that we're really concerned about? Yes, I would say yes and I don't even know if there's a concern I think what originally came out was people were saying you cannot take all the expertise off a committee that's insane. Like we these are, you know, we need some people who have served it for some period of time. And I don't think that this was trying to, you know, either. I think the only thing that this was trying to do was was to respond to the counselors who are saying look these are trained positions and I think that we have to give we have to keep a certain amount of expertise there. And so, in other words, taking advantage of the experience and expertise game, which is what is stated yes, I agree. So, a suggestion has been made to conversely for person. Well, I don't even be conversely. So, so if a person has completed, or has or will complete six consecutive years. And take everything else out preference would be given to a newcomer. If a person is completed or will complete six consecutive years. And there are other qualified applicants. Will complete. Does that mean if I have four years and I want I'm applying for a two year term, I wouldn't be given preference. You'd be fine. Well, the issue is if you've served five years, and you want to serve two more years, right language would suggest that not that you couldn't do it, but that there would be a preference for a newcomer. So, I need language here. So I would strike conversely. Person has completed six years. In consecutive years on a committee on one of on level on. I would use the word served instead of completed. Okay. Okay. If a person has served or will have served. So, for instance, in the case of someone who served five years, they have not served six years, but in applying or reapplying to actually would have seven years of service. And so if a person has served. Okay, that's not really it is it will have served six years going to write it for the moment. And there are other qualified applicants preference would be given to newcomer. That doesn't solve my problem. You could say we'll have served six years after reappointment or more than six years after if reappointed something like that. The person has served six years or will have served. More than six years. If reappointed. And there are other qualified applicants preference would be given to newcomer. And we change another word to change the wood to may preference may be given to a newcomer, because isn't that still a dissent. Well, I don't never mind. I think the statement is that. Yeah, that's it. That's probably will not would. Yeah, would this. We're probably should be active tense reference will be given to a newcomer. Yes. Can you change that George. I will. I'm just trying to reference will be given to a newcomer. Okay. We saw the issue where the lessons is needed. And maybe we should just leave it in. I mean, that that goes to my thinking that goes to Pat's question of. Will or may, I think. I think if we keep it will you might actually. I don't know. Well, I'm just saying the first class seems extraneous but then just cutting the first class and saying longer periods of service may be appropriate. You know, it's the special training and all whereas if you go with maybe given to a newcomer, and I still like will. But maybe it's the first clause in cases where special training, and you could just say in circumstance in certain circumstances longer periods of service may be appropriate. I think this goes to the situation where you have a committee chair that's been on for six years and, and nobody else in the committee, even though they have experience wants to be chair or is willing to be chair or has had enough experience to be chair. I think that's it's more about that not that they don't have experience and expertise. So maybe we could say in certain circumstances, but that is very loosey goosey. There may be circumstances where longer periods of services service is appropriate. Yeah, it's loosey goosey. Yeah. I think that's better in the original language because then at least it means, you know that there might be somebody that has way more experience than others. So, I'm thinking of with say with finance you could have somebody apply who just is you know like stellar, I mean has ticks all the boxes, but the person up for reappointment, maybe ticks only one of the boxes. So does this policy ties in. I don't think it does. I'm sorry you have to articulate how you're going to actually vote for, you're going to knock somebody off the committee's only been on there for two or three or four years, because quite frankly you think this new candidate just, you know, has special skills or whatever that just are really needed. I don't see why you can't do that. I don't think this policy prevents you from doing that. Yeah, I'm, I would, I would go along with either leaving it the way it has been for all these years, or getting rid of it, but not changing it to just any circumstance. What I like about it is that it acknowledges what I take to be a fact about this proposed policy, which is that there are other factors that are relevant it's not just that you've been an active contributing member. Yes, you have a preference, but there are circumstances in which longer periods of service could be appropriate. So, if we're using the word preference. In the way it sounds like I don't interpret it but many other people do. Maybe it is in certain circumstances longer or shorter periods of service may be appropriate. Yeah, because what I'm hearing from the committee members is that preference is not how I traditionally interpret preference which is, you kind of get it, and then it has to be a really clear case not to give it to you. Because that's how I interpret it, but what I'm hearing is for many for many of the committee members here, it doesn't necessarily have to be a really clear case you just have to have a good reason, but it doesn't necessarily have to be obvious to others. And if that's the case, we should maybe state flat out that shorter periods of service may also be appropriate. I think we already, we already have a clause that would deal with that where, where, you know, it could be interpreted that people aren't active contributing members of the committee. And that's not the only, what George stated is that's not the only reason when a shorter period of service may be appropriate. I mean, I don't like what Smith's doing on planning board I'm sick and tired of Smith, and I want Smith out, and it's perfectly legitimate for me to vote Smith out, even though I agree that normally I'd give preference to, to service and all the rest of it. It's just not enough to to convince me that Smith should be given the boot. That doing that negates the entire thing. You know, if you're saying that we're putting in a sentence that now allows us not to have a preference for, for, for appointment for six years, that's the out right there. So, I, I would not agree to that. But basically what you're saying is preference for you means that all things considered, no matter what you think about this person and what they're doing on X, Y and Z board. Basically they get, they get reappointed. No preference means they get additional points, you know, and those points aren't enough to convince me to keep Smith because Smith has just been doing things on planning board that I think are loopy. And, or, you know, whatever, and I just don't want Smith anymore and planning board, which seems perfectly legitimate for me to do that. And maybe the vote maybe 12 to one, but I just don't want to vote for Smith. And this allows me to do that. But if we have a policy which says, you can't vote against Smith because Smith gets a preference in the sense that Mandy means that basically unless Smith, you know, sets fire to the council room. Smith gets reappointed. So, I like this language because it is there is leeway in it, but it does acknowledge what I think is an important thing to acknowledge, which is that it does matter that people have served, we want to recognize that and respect that. But it's not the only factor. Now that's not all that different from CRC. But it is this is more explicit and I can live with it, as long as it has that fudge factor, and that this is what this has. But if you don't want something with a fudge factor, then I think you need to write this differently. And I won't vote for it but that's just one vote. But this has a fudge factor but it also acknowledges things that I think we need to acknowledge and have traditionally been acknowledged. We already have the fudge factor with the preference and the final sentence is simply to allow the situation where you know the chair is, you know, far more experienced than everybody else, etc, etc. So, yeah, yeah. You have to go back to the original language which I think I've mangled down but in case so you would like to keep in cases where right special training or expertise is required longer periods of service may be appropriate. I guess I, going back to George was just saying in the first sentence, I don't see a fudge factor for anything other than active contributing member that other than if they're that that the preference is there unless they're not a contributing not an active member and and it goes to what what a person's definition of preference is, if we get a case where a reappointment is there and a person who is would be new to the board is well more experienced in that than a reappointment person because they happen to serve on a planning board, or a zoning board of appeals or a finance committee in another town for 12 years. You know, they, I'm not sure this language allows us to say that person should be appointed over this reappointment person and that's that. But I think now I'm confused with Darcy's comments, would, does she believe that language allows this. Well it sounds like she does not believe the language allows that, and she does not want the language to allow that I can understand that she's perfectly free to write emotion anyway she wishes which is what we're trying to do here, but it sounds like Darcy you want emotion which essentially would make it pretty clear that that would not be a permissible reason. Namely that I don't like Smith or that you know so and so just has so much better more experience and and bring so much more to this body that replacement makes sense. That would not be you'd like that not to be possible. I really want this issue to, to go before the full council, because you know the main issue with me is that I want a unified procedure that all committees use for appointments that it doesn't make sense for one committee to have a more restrictive procedure than all committees. It doesn't make sense to me and I, I think we're going around in circles here. Well this is specifically about term limits it's not about procedure it's not about whether there's a, you know, a statement of interest about how the interviews so we do our interviews differently than CRC does their interviews, and we'll get to that soon but this is not about interview process. It's not about statements of interest is not about CAF is not about any of that stuff. It's just about term lines. That's interviewed that's part of the application process. term limits is a different issue many. So, this isn't procedure at all this is, this is, this is directly about who gets recommended or not recommended, which is not a procedural thing in my policy. So if you want to unified procedure then this is not something that unifies a procedure this is directly to whether the count each individual counselor has what they have to think and how what they have to apply to their own belief on who should be recommended when you're in committee or who should be voted on when you're in the council. It's about whether or not CRC should have its own different policy about term limits from everything else, and which it does have and whether the recommendation based on that should carry weight when the full council hasn't agreed to it. That's what it's about. And so that is why I, you know, all along have really wanted the full council to decide on this. So, yeah. I just want because the majority of the council will go with CRC. That that that may be the case but I also think that it's that it's an issue that should be publicly aired and not just aired in the GOL committee where, you know, like maybe one person is watching us but you know that we don't. It's an important issue that the that the public should know about. And so that's why I would like to, to recommend that the council look at it even though, you know, it may not pass the council. So, so the question. I think we first just need to get some agreement as to what the actual motion is before we can stop discussion. But any motions to amend it so this is what it is right. Well I think you already have a problem here. Yeah, yeah. We agreed it's regarding or in the matter of. I'm just trying to get the language straight. So, for your sake, and for the sake of the committee. Yeah, so you can't use a semicolon you've got to be something is that acceptable in the matter of term limits. And again, this is your motion so I'm not trying you tell me what you want in it, but if a person has served six years or will have served is an amendment to your original language which I understood to be a friendly amendment. Yes, friendly. Okay, and you want to keep in cases where special case so that everything the wording is as you wish it to be. Yes. Okay. Now, I think we're ready to go to a vote. Any further discussion. All right, I'm going to start this time with Mandy Joe. No. And Pat. Yes. Hi, and Sarah. Hi, and Darcy. Yes. Chair, just get a vote I. So the vote is four to one. So this will be, I will be in contact with the president and see what you wish to do in terms of the agenda. In the report, I will try to capture some of the debate. And I think I will acknowledge that from the chair's perspective. This is being presented or recommended primarily for the council to make up its mind. I may very well vote against this actually in council. But I think it's important that it get to the council. And I just hope it doesn't take up as much time in the council. As it has taken up with us today, but that's just the way it is. So. All right. Item two. We need to talk about the charge for DAB. And so I'm going to stop sharing my screen. The moment. I'm going to go open up the. Make sure I've got the right document. This one, let me make sure. Yep. All right. So. Everyone see it. I think help. Many of you have given this more thought, I think, than anyone, but we need to, first of all, agree on the language of the charge. And then I'm not sure we're going to have enough time today, but this we do need to begin thinking about the process that this is going to entail. I don't have a document on that. I can put up in a moment. But you had raised, I think two concerns, Mandy, and I believe that this is a slightly changed version from what we saw at council. Can you point out the changes that are you able to point out the changes that have been made to this document? I think Lynn forwarded you a document and she had admitted she were said she attached the wrong one at the council meeting or something. But just to start with, I have a couple of clerical ones at large should probably have a hyphen in front of it or between it. So this is, are we looking at a cursor is. Okay, right. Large has the hyphen. And then that was the main clerical one. So what was deleted from the one that was at the council was the extra stuff, the non required stuff. Okay. So it was two bullet points not attached to these four. Okay. I support that deletion as I said at the council level I also have a request that one thing and then a couple of different changes to the charge section of the document due to that. And I wanted to talk about the report date. Before I go back to Mandy any questions or comments from other members of the committee. This is time sensitive that's something we'll talk about before we're done this morning in terms of the time demands on us. And so we'll talk a little bit about timeline but came and if you'd like to go ahead. Yeah, and hopefully my battery will last it's not charging with a plugin but um, the bullet I would like to add well first of all in the charge section done down on the second page. After statutory and before requirements. I would like to add and Charter section 7.4 right in the second line. Read following MGL chapter 54 section one two and four statutory and Charter section 7.4 requirements. Charter seven, I'm sorry seven point seven section seven point four. Voting precinct in the third bullet point should be capital initial capped. It is one time but it's not in the second. The third bullet point sentence. Second sentence of the third bullet point the bullet point that says if I got it, got it, got it, okay. Not voting precincts capitalizing. And the bullet point I want to add is, it would go with the very end of right there, and it would be each district shall comma to the extent possible comma cluster together centers of common interest or neighborhoods comma considering not limited to comma places where people live, congregate, recreate, worship shop and learn. It is a direct quote from Charter section 7.4. All right, so if you will kindly just slow a little slower to the extent possible comma cluster together. Cluster together. Centers of common interest or neighborhoods. Interest singular. Thank you. And then comma, considering comma but not limited to comma places where people live. And it's just a list so there'll be commas live comma congregate, recreate, worship shop and learn. It's just to show the extent possible cluster together centers of common interest or neighborhoods, considering but not limited to places where people live, congregate, recreate, worship shop and learn. You're introducing this bullet point, and really in response to the, what you introduced earlier above, which was. Right, where, where was that where you entered the charter right. Charter section 7.4 that was drafted was pulled out of the quote. All right. Yes. Where are we. We're right now down here under going to the third bullet point under charge. Yeah. And the second sentence. When dividing a district into voting precincts, not voting precinct should be no voting precinct show. You know what precinct shall be so formed that it will be partly in one congressional district and partly in another conditional district. Thank you. Okay. Any other we can go through this together line by line but I just have a general question George, please. Um, this is all required by, we're being required to do this by state law, right. Yes. Pardon, and the charter and the charter. Do we foresee. Much change in our districts. I don't think we do, but on the other hand, it all seems to depend on the census. And the census numbers won't be getting to get into us until the end of September. But I doubt that that will really change anything. So the other thing I would add is the district lines are really based now on the. It's a complicating factor that the Charter Commission only had certain options for combination based on 10 precincts in order to make five districts that didn't necessarily take into consideration centers of common interest or neighborhoods. Considering where places people live congregate recreate worship shop and learn. So this is the first. This is, this will be the first time ever that the district advisory board gets to draw and split to five, not to 10. And that makes a huge difference in terms of potentially makes a huge difference in terms of what that's very mandaring. Yeah, but I guess your point is this actually will be not the usual sort of process. It's going to be actually a very different one and a first time one. And so it's going to be important and somewhat challenging problem. So irrespective of what the census says. Just doing this to create five districts. So they might not necessarily go along the lines of the previous precincts. Yeah. What the committee members choose would be Mike. That would be horrendously quick, but that game that's something they're going to have to wrestle with. And so our job is simply to make sure the census is clear, consistent, actionable. And also to begin the process of, of recruiting and interviewing and recommending where that came from. Okay, so we don't have to talk about the substance of it. I just wondered. I think that's pretty much given. I think what is not completely determined is the composition. So reports before we do composition. I'm sure. So under reports. It's got an empty date. I think there's, I think there's a state law that is already going to be violated because the census is late. So whether we want to try and put a date in one option is within 60 days of receiving final census numbers from the state. One option is in accordance with state law. The state's going to set a date by which the council has to act as my guess. The safest would be in accordance with state law. We don't even know when we're getting the numbers. So provide reports to town council. In accordance with state law. That includes the following. That description of the process utilize key points and deliberation recommendation regarding districts. Okay. All right. We probably don't have a date for that. We could pick any date with life. Okay. All right. We probably want SME status. I don't think that has to go on the charge, but it needs part of the vote when we vote the charge. Are we prepared to, and I'm not sure what our actual official act should be. Should we be declaring this clear consistent actual and then ready to send back to the council? I think that would be the normal thing we would do. I think it's also a recommendation to adopt. I think it's a recommendation to adopt. So maybe just the recommendation to adopt would be sufficient. Take advice from anyone, whether they want the one simply recommendation to adopt or you want. We declare this to be one, two or one vote. We could have two votes. I have. Please. I'm getting, I'm looking at voting members and it says two counselors, preferably at large, or at least one counselor preferably at large, but I don't see why two have to be at large. My instinct is Pat that it's, you know, if you are actually going to be running in a district. So you're a district counselor. No, I understand. Right. I don't think it has to, I think preferably at one, at least one counselor preferably at large, but I don't see why two have to be at large. My instinct is Pat that it's to, you know, I understand. Right. Exactly. So you probably wouldn't want someone like that on this body. But I don't know whether I want three, two of our current. At large counselors. At large counselors. I don't have the same respect for all three of them. And I feel like counselors, regular counselors should have input into the same thing. I feel like right now the three counselors are a block. And, you know, Should there be counselors? Should there be counselors at all? Should there be counselors? Should there be counselors at all? Why are counselors serving on this? Is state law required? Good question. Now, I don't know. Does it have to be nine voting members? So nine is per the charter. Does the charter dictate? That's right up top. Okay. The town council shall appoint a district advisory board composed of nine members from diverse geographical areas, plus the town clerk or the clerk's design. Doesn't say anything about counselors. That is correct. It doesn't prohibit counselors, but it doesn't require council. Right. But you're defining. The way it's stated now is that it's defined that two of those members need to be counselors. You're not advocating Constitutional. That being said, you know, I'm not talking about being objective in the same way that I mean, because. Even at large, you might want to have, I don't know. A person could potentially I'm not pointing any fingers. I'm just saying if this is going to stay for a very long time, if we're going to do this again and however many years. Even at large could be, could be biased. Well, I would certainly want to draw a district three, Just to have Dana street. First of all, because you're there to save me a lot of time in terms of knocking on doors. I want to district to so I have self point and stuff. I did a lot of votes, you know. So it sounds like I'm hearing at least from some of my committee members that they would strike preferably at large and just say to counselors. Mandy. I have the same feeling as George does as to why at large might be less biased, but I don't have a problem with it. Another option is to potentially say one counselor and one charter commission member I don't know whether you'd get charter commission members to apply but they've sort of had to make this decision at least initially on the five districts to combine the 10 precincts into five districts it was quite an interesting conversation when it was done. And that's what I want you on here but I don't think I wanted to go back to the charter commission. I just thought I'd bring that up as a potential other option. But I certainly would support you on this and I, and you have that experience so I don't think. It sounds like we're going to strike preferably at large. We're going to. So anything else to members of the board registrars. And five residents one from each of the existing districts. I mean you could take out counselors and just have seven residents, but that would be for taking out counselors. I know that's probably going to be. Yeah, I think I would be too. We can go one counselor and six residents, at least one from each existing district. I mean, the point of having counselors is that it is, you know, I guess would be that they do bring practical real world experience in in politics. If we're going to counselors, I really think we should not have them be cares of committees like this, where there's a mix of residents and counselors I think that's a mistake on several committees so I don't have a trouble with counselors being on and I just have the trouble with the preferably at large. Can you just explain why you. I mean, I guess for me it's more of an issue of that anyone who is a counselor and who is thinking about running again might have a bias, although they have the expertise to me I'd almost rather have. I'm just spitballing but I, I would almost rather have somebody from the Charter Commission who has talked about it before then actually have to counselors and I just, I just, I'm not. I think it would be natural. I think it would be natural no matter how much of a fair human being you are to to maybe have some, some bias and again I'm thinking in, you know, for however many years we do this I'm not necessarily thinking about right now. Well then. It also seems like there's a, like a hierarchy right because I'm sure that resident members would probably in some way we're an amorous but worried about by saying can't be the chairs. I could go with what you're saying if we increased it to seven residents one of whom would have been on Charter Commission. I don't know. Good questions and good issues. I certainly hear the point that there would be a conflict of interest. Certainly for someone who is concerned running again or is running again to be on a body that's going to. On the other hand that's what Congress does all the time. So, and look how it works. It's done. So, I think probably most of us would agree that an independent commission would work much better nationally. I'm not that much worried about Amherst but I think the arguments. Yeah, just a good conversation right because it's it's always concerning when you put the political element in. I do want to point out and I don't know whether this has any bearing that whatever districts are drawn under this district advisory because we're so late getting the census numbers it won't actually apply to the upcoming November 2021 election where the counselors that are currently on the council are being elected, it would apply to the council election after that. So, I don't know whether that I think the concern about things because the current counselors may or may not run for reelection but if they are, they don't know they're not drawing for the election happening in six months. They're still maybe part of a political they have a certain political opinion which I think we've already kind of talked about that counselors are elected and I see what you're saying about them being able to have, you know, make their own judgment calls and even when you're working with numbers I think that there is still a fact for certain judgment calls to be there. I think I would still maybe be more comfortable. I think counselors also lots of times and if you don't run for reelection you may be looking for people who will run for reelection. And again, I'm not talking about I'm just talking about like you're saying Mandy this is going to be, you know, this may happen, you know, again, and even 50 years down the road I think I would still want to maybe. I mean, I don't know if I'll still be Charter Commission members left but I still think that counselors might not be as objective. Can I ask a clarifying question. This happens when a census has been taken is that correct. Every 10 years. It doesn't seem like I'll be dead, but So what puts you on this. You're clearly disinterested. I don't know. It just it's not going to be happening very often. And there's 10 years from this next from this one. I don't even know if the Charter Commission would be important then. So what are the, what are the, what's the mix of residents and experience that we want. If the members of the Board of Registrar seems to me to be kind of critical they're the ones who actually know what's going on, even more than the Charter Commission I think. If we could guarantee two members of the Charter Commission be willing to serve that I would be sympathetic to do that. Darcy. By the way, I had my hand up for a while now. I don't know what it was. Well, we never know with you, honey. Yeah, I wish I've been my mind's been occupied and other things I thought. I would. I would agree with Sarah that I don't really see why there should be counselors or Charter Commission members on this thing that it should be, you know, my preference would just be seven residents. I'm not sure how to disperse the additional two residents. But I, yeah, I think, I don't think there's any reason for counselors to be on this. All right. I was hoping we could get through this today but I'm thinking that. I mean, we could, but I'm thinking that what I'd like to do is temporarily stop sharing this for a moment. We're not going to look in fact can come back to it if we wish and vote on it, but I'm going to stop sharing this for a moment. And put up a timeline. So let's see if I can find it quickly. Yeah. I want us to just think a little bit about. So, look at this. So, I was thought we could create the draft charge today. And it has to go out to Michelle Tassenari at the elections division for her review. So if we don't get it done today and I'm not saying that we will or we won't. And now we have 15 minutes technically left. It then goes to her. And then she sends it back and hopefully it says it's fine. Meanwhile, we would meet again on April 7, and we continue to work on the process and timeline for recruiting interviewing and recommending appointees to DAB. And down below, I just, this is all draft preliminary just, you know, seated the pants, but I just started listing what I imagine would be the process and timeline for creating the DAB. And I put in some dates, just for the sake of, you know, argument, but for instance that, you know, we don't get the numbers from the state until at the earliest September 30. And then supposedly they have 60 days to do their job. So that's in November. So what's the point of appointing a body. Earlier than basically around the end of September. In other words, what, what is it for them, what can they do in the interim. Then why do the interviewing and recruiting back in March and April, I agree. I agree that so that's all these are all provisional dates and they're all based on there. I have a basic confusion or just question about the timeline or the rush. I'm getting a sense from the president that she'd like this done quickly and so that's why I'm pushing it along. But maybe what her concern is simply the process, she just wants to know what the process is going to be. And she wants the charge obviously settled. And then the rest of this may not happen for a number of months. This is what I envision would be whatever the dates turn out to be. We would eventually post a notice like we would do for finance. We would solicit CAFs. I assume we would urge people to apply. We each of us individually would go out to people in our districts and say would you consider doing this. And then we would look at the pool and we have to declare it sufficient. Then we'd have to conduct, you have to conduct interviews, I guess we would. Then eventually we would have to make a recommendation to the council. And then all this would be done, I think, prior to the census numbers becoming available. We wouldn't want to wait until that point because that really would be there. So we want to have this body in place. The question is when I don't know the summer is a terrible time. Yeah, hang on George Mandy's. Mandy, please. Yeah, so I think the earlier the better, even though there might not be much that can be done, but because it's such a strict timeline. And what I feel like is might be a really compressed timeline. I mean, during the holidays, right. Potentially, or the start of a school year or things that having the committee in place ahead of time and having already let them meet once or twice to elect chairs to figure out themselves to talk about what the process is and have all that preliminary stuff done, including potentially identifying, you know, things that could be done ahead of time you can't draw lines but you can identify the clusters of common interests and things like numbers. There's potentially things that could be done ahead of time before you get the numbers that might allow the redistricting itself once the numbers are in to go along a little smoother and feel a little less compressed if we do it soon. And my thinking is the earlier we can do it the less we're in summer while we're doing it in terms of the. Okay, so we want to move with delivered speed. So, I'm going to leave this document in the folder for next time. I'm going to take it down now for a moment to go back to the charge, because if we could agree in the next 10 minutes or so that the charges adequate I can then send it to tassanari and start this going. If we feel and we may very well feel that we can't resolve some issues about the charge today that obviously will be a prime issue for our next meeting in one week. It will now be April 8, perhaps, or a ninth when I send this to tassanari, but so people, I mean this just gives you an idea of what we're in for as a committee over the next couple of months, or at least next month or two, I think. So I'm going to stop sharing this. I'm going to go back quickly and put the charge up and we need to decide in the next few minutes whether we want to try and hammer this out, or whether we want to go back to it with some time to think some more about issues like counselors and no counselors give that counselors, seven residents, try to members, there's some issues here in terms of composition. That we can try to resolve now I think everything else is pretty much okay. I think managed on a good job going through this. She's made some changes that I think were acceptable. There's some issues right now, except about composition. Can we resolve this to our satisfaction in the next 10 minutes, or do people want more time to think about this and to think about, you know, if you don't have counselors then is it just seven residents and five of them come from the districts and the other two. You know, I don't know. Charter members and no charter members. Mandy. I just did a little bit of research, and I can certainly do more. It appears Northampton. It's the city clerk that redraws all the lines there's no committee. It appears in East Hampton, it's the town council that redraws the lines. I just wanted to bring that up. Those are the only two I looked at. Yeah, just just to see in terms of what their charter language art is and that's what the charter languages and those two. And as a point of, it varies widely in towns as to what the composition or who is redrawing these lines and doing the updating and all every 10 years. And so I don't think there's any precedent one way or another. I think the last redistricting committee actually had a select board member on it. We have to check. There were nine members everyone was from one of the nine precincts at the time I think we might have added a 10th precinct 10 years ago. And so one of them might have been a select board member. I think when Lynn was looking at the report she indicated that that person had but it could have been a former select board member for all I know. So I just wanted to point that out that it's all over the map. Yeah, it's all over the map. I don't think it's out of line to have counselors. It might have counselors. I certainly prefer that or charter commission we could say to counselors or charter commission members. I don't know given there were only nine charter commission members whether there are any, and other than me that would be interested in serving on it. I would love this committee if there is a counselor position or a charter commission. But, you know, I'm, that's, that's where I am. Pat. That was, I, I'm. Thank you. I think that's really at large which I think we've agreed to. I think I could go with counselors and I might want to be one of them. So who knows over my dead body. Okay. I'm a. Counselors I think I could go with that I'd like to just leave counselors in and send this off the tassinari, but I think two members the committee probably don't agree. I don't want to speak up, but I think that we just need to resolve this issue of voting members. And I think we can just take out preferably at large, send this to tassinari and get this started. But let's hear from Sarah and or from Darcy. I'm not going to go with counselors, but at the same time, I'm going to have, I cannot think fast on my feet right now who else I would put on this that I didn't feel like we could potentially have a bias. So I, I would ask just maybe to give me a little bit of time just until like what the seventh to, to maybe try to come up with something that seems satisfactory. And if I can't then, you know, I go along with it but right now I don't feel comfortable with the counselor part. I don't have any more time to mull this over. Not a lot, but just enough to understand, I know. Mandy, I just have an idea in terms of sending off to this tassinari that I doubt the composition is going to make a difference on her opinion as to whether it's legal or not. It's all state law. And so maybe we could put in a, you know that the, we could say that the composition is still up. You know it will be nine, and it's up in, you know, we could put some things in there but really allow her to dig into the purpose on the charge section which is probably the more important sections. So you think this could be sent ahead. I checked with Lynn, obviously, but you thought is it could be sent ahead to tassinari with that note. And unless she objects she could do what she needs to do and by the time we get it back, we can make our decision on the seven. It might be possible I don't know what other. I can, I certainly have many comfortable with that so I would just leave this as a placeholder. We haven't determined whether we're going to have counselors or not, but everything else we are agreed to. I don't know if we need to actually have a vote on that or not. That seems good. I think it's just an understanding, and that we would we would reserve the vote for when we actually decide about the composition, and then we would then it would go to council so can't. I have to look at my calendar again but essentially, but slow it down a little bit but I think not that much. I think I would like to give Sarah the time she needs so I think that makes sense. But to not make a decision on this today, we're certainly not going to vote on it. We're not going to decide on the composition we're going to give everyone a chance to think some more about it. In the meantime, I get, I'm getting permission or seems consensus to try and send this on to tassinari. And if that works great if it doesn't want and we'll just do it a little later, but and we'll pick this up again on April 7. And we'll also pick up the process that document will be in your folder for you to look at the dates again or all that just pretty much made up but it's just to get the steps and so have you can ponder that review stormwater and ID by law this is item number four. Mandy's gone through it as she does so often and made a number of just basically editing changes. I was going to send that so my mistake here though it actually probably was a good mistake was not to invite Beth Wilson. I think Beth would have spent two hours. No, we would have taken her first, you know, probably, but I think this worked out the way it should have. So, Beth will be invited and she's already agreed to come. I'm going to send her what Mandy has done, just for her to look at, and it will be in the packet for you to review as well. But we will take that up first thing actually on the seventh out of respect for Beth. And I think mostly it's just minor, you know typos and corrections and so on, but we do need to do that. So that will be in the packet, including Mandy's changes. And we'll take up proclamations next time I will just it's in your packet but it will be in there again. I just want us to go through and and see what the process is, and see if we have any changes or concerns. There's an email from Alyssa Brewer which I think I think I understand most of it, and I'd like us to go through it and make sure that her concerns are being addressed. So, we're going to postpone that for next time as well. Obviously, Pat was ready. Mandy was ready. But we'll have to put it off for next time bylaws general bylaws 3.26 with that will be an item for next time. Okay. So, that is that minutes I've looked at I'm satisfied with them but if anyone has any concerns or if they've had had haven't had a chance to look at them. I can postpone that otherwise I would entertain a motion to accept the minutes of March 17 2021 as presented. I'll move that. All right, we have a motion any second. I'll second it. Second the Angelus thank you so we have a long time. That's quite a right. So motion made by Mandy seconded by Pat. I'm going to go to a vote immediately. And the chairs going to vote yes. Pat. And Darcy. I abstain because I didn't read them. Sorry. You don't have to you can abstain. It's all right. Mandy. Hi. And Sarah. Hi. All right. So the vote is for in favor and one abstain the minutes of March 17 2021 are accepted as presented items for next time very quickly. Let me just put something up on this screen if I can find it fast. Which means I probably can't. Yeah, here it is. We have Arbor month coming up guys, and I have no idea who's the sponsor of Arbor month anyone have an idea. And I'm really excited to see. The reward. Is that snow? Should I reach out down snow up at April 7th. So let me just put this. Let me open this file. Hopefully it will open. Yes, it did open. Let me just share the screen. Let me do this again. There you go. I'm getting good at this guys. This is scary. Yeah. That's right. I might have a real job when I leave this business. That's going to be April 7th at Wilson. We will also be still wrestling with the DAB. That's not on this list. I guess I can add it. It is. Okay. Right. It is. Thank you. Bylaws for confusion consideration. We really need to start thinking about this. CRC is already ahead of the game. Your chair is a little slower in the uptake. We need to publicize the vacancy. We need to approve our selection criteria and appointment process. Our selection process. And we need. To discuss our preference. I think we've already discussed that enough. And our question is just. I have reached out to Bob Hedner to see. And I assume that's okay. I've done it through the chair actually, but if that, if the chair doesn't get an answer. So. That's what's coming up. He's an excellent member of the committee. Yeah. No, I think he's a strong candidate, but we just don't know who's going to reapply. So that will be. Also on the agenda for next time, because your chair needs to get this start process started. We need to send out a notice of vacancy. And at some point, and I'll make a timeline for you. But it does raise the question. We're not going to discuss now. Which is what's the chair saying to people. When they apply, but he'll have to figure that out. Come up with something. Arbor month. You think Alan snow. I don't know. But we should get that out. At the next meeting. And I think the month of April or the month of August. At the next meeting. And I think the month of April. Council meets again on the 12th. Hi, George. It's Athena. We're doing agenda setting later today. And I was going to ask where we are with Arbor month. And I think there's also a Southeast Asian heritage month proclamation that may be coming. That Jen moistens working on with the racial equity team or racial equity. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. Something. So if I, if I hear about that today, I can let you know. I have a copy. Well, you have a copy. I'm sure of the last Arbor month proclamation. And it could probably just be re-issued. But normally we, we stayed with the sponsor is. So that would be helpful. I think it might be the shade tree committee, but. Angela or Jen. I'll check on that. And then I wanted to do it today, but we didn't get to it, but we had a discussion of what happens to proclamations once voted by GOL. Since we don't have any today, but we might have some on next week. We do want to talk about it with Athena present. To make sure that we're on the same page, but we'll do that next time. I think we were out of time today. All right. So that's what's in the pipeline. Do we have public present? Let me stop sharing and take a look. I haven't had a chance to look today. I think Adrian was here. Adrian, I think still here. Okay. So we have one attendee. So this is the time, believe it or not. For public to speak if they wish. And you have up to three minutes. All you need to do is raise your hand. Adrian, you had raised and lowered your hand. So it's lowered now. So if you'd like to speak, please push that button. Please. All right. Adrian, if you would. I'm going to ask Athena to bring her into the meeting. And allow her to speak. Just state your name and where you live. And you have three minutes. Hello. And thank you. My raise and lower hand button seems to be having a problem this morning. And I listened with great interest to you. I'm here to, in particular for the district advisory board. And I have less comments to make because thanks to Mandy Joe. I was, I noted the. That last and very important bullet in regard bullet regarding community. And neighbors and that's in such and Mandy Joe, thank you for that. So. I do have a question as well as a comment regarding. The, the composition of the committee. And I will try to keep within my three minutes. First, the 2011 committee. The district advisory board on which I serve. Was composed entirely of non-elected. Members. They were drawn from all 10 precincts of Amherst. I think wisely. The appointment process. Went to nine. Of those 10 precincts. With the rationale provided. MGL law does state the composition of nine. In a community, I believe Mandy Joe, you can look that up. And of all of the elements of MGL 54. The sections continually respond. Refer to precincts. Now, I know we're going to five districts, perhaps even five voting districts in the future. So a couple of comments regarding the composition. I would hope that we keep this independent. Of any politics or partisanship. For me having. The town councillors. With all due respect with the amount of work you pour into our town. Or two of the three members of the board registrar. That's four out of nine of the positions. To really. People who are politically aligned in one way or another. And I think that's a good point. I feel it's in the best interest of Amherst. That we keep this absolutely free of the kind of divisiveness that may occur. If we throw it to. A body that represents. Anything other than an independent resident. Who's vitally interested. I've always been in the census and. And maps. So I'm so grateful for having been said, I hope you take that under consideration further. I would like to add. My understanding is that municipalities. Are going to be receiving preliminary numbers. Before the state even gets them because the state must. As you know, establish congressional districts. And it seems that we're going to get these preliminary numbers. timeline, because we all may be surprised that well before September 30th, which is the drop dead date for that deadline, that Amherst as well as all the other municipalities in the state get those numbers. The state has them through the American Community Service, which does regular census to take the pulse, if you will, of where we need to go when we redraw our lines and our borders and our boundaries for our new maps. So I think that's it. So thanks so much. I'll join you again hopefully next week to see where you land on this over and out. Thank you, Adrienne. Thank you. I'll try to lower my hand. It's already lowered. We never saw it, honey. Don't worry. All right. So we have completed. Any of you who watch Click and Clack, remember Click and Clack? You don't know them from NPR. Okay, sorry. They did a wonderful radio show for years on a great show. And you're always in. You've now wasted two. I won't repeat what they say. Exactly. You know, Darcy, you know, you have not actually wasted. You've done a good job. I just didn't get through my list, but that's not really that important. We'll take it up next week. So we're meeting a week from today, believe it or not, same time, same place. Got a pretty good idea of what we've got on our plate. I will be in contact with the president about the motion we passed today and decide what she wants to do. I'm sorry. And I will reach out to the president also about the DAB, getting the charge out, see if we can get that out and back. All right. All right. Go well, everyone. Take care. Take care, everyone. Thank you. Bye-bye.