 So this meeting is being recorded. Oh, good evening, everybody. I'm going to go ahead and just read the script for the virtual meetings. Pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 21. This meeting will be conducted be a remote means members of the public who wish to access the meeting. May do so with the zoom link that's been provided on the website. The person attendance of members of the public is permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time via zoom. In the event that you're unable to do so. For reasons of economic hardship and despite best efforts we will post the recording of this meeting on the town's YouTube channel. And minutes will be also posted as well. So, I think we then need to go through and just do an audio check and make sure we can hear and be heard. So I'll just go across the screen. Julian. Sorry, I'm here. Thanks, Rachel. Here and can hear. Thank you. Here and can hear love it here here. Cool. Yep. Christie. Hi, everyone. Robin. Yeah. And Arthur. Great. Nice to see you all tonight. It's, I think my thinking is that we have a fairly. Getting some echo there. We'll have a fairly short meeting tonight. Is there anything I can do? I think I keep seeing Robin's thing come up whenever the echo starts. So maybe if everybody could mute themselves when you're not speaking, I think that'd be the best course of action. Excellent suggestion. So there may be something wrong with it. That was a good, good suggestion, Arthur. Thank you. Okay. The minutes were sent out from our previous meeting shortly after that meeting. Does anybody have discussion or notes on those? Seeing none. I guess we would take a. We take a motion to approve them. Oh, and you know what? Our note taker is not here tonight. So I will take. I'll take a second. I can type into the agenda unless somebody else would like to, I can, I can type into the agenda unless somebody else would like to take the minutes. I can take minutes. If you have a, yeah. That'd be great. Cool. Thank you. So could we have a, anybody want to make a motion to approve the minutes? Julian. I'll second. I guess we'll do a roll call vote. Rachel. Yes. Yes. Yes. Christy. Yes. Yes. Robin. Yes. And Arthur. Yes. All right. Great. Cole. Thank you so much for doing that tonight. Okay. So the agenda as I said, I sent it out kind of last minute. I apologize for that. There are a couple of items that were not previously anticipated that were not previously anticipated. I think we have a couple of items that were not previously anticipated. One is a. Another grant amendment request that came through. And then another one is Rachel pointed out. We wanted to have a discussion about rate possible possible regular meeting time so we can. Cover those. But I think the first item. On the agenda is certainly one that. I should just let Julian kind of speak to because she's put. An incredible amount of work into it. I think we should have a discussion about. The normal amendment request at this point for. Yusufa. We do. Yes. He sent in the paperwork. That was what Cindy. You also had in the. The email, but he'd sent it to us. Yeah. So I don't. I guess there's no easy way to distribute the paperwork here to everyone, but I can, I can go through it. is for Yusuf Vasidibe's 2021 project, he did not complete it. And then he subsequently applied and was also awarded a 2022 grant as well. So he initially asked for reimbursement for a session that he did over at UMass. That session, as it turns out, was not open to the public in any way. It wasn't broadcast and it absolutely does not meet our criteria, honestly, to even consider reimbursing for that. So over the weekend, he drafted a new amendment request and his new plan is he would like to complete eight recording sessions of 20 minute long performances and then broadcast these eight unique broadcasts on Amherst TV between May 20th and June 24th. He has confirmed with Amherst TV that they do have scheduling time. They actually came back to him and said, hey, we're short on music programming. We really need that. That'd be great. And he believes that he can get this done now finally. Now, there are many things that have changed for the 2021 project versus the initial grant. So I had a conversation with him earlier today and I explained that anytime we have a change like this, one, we have to make sure that it actually meets our grant criteria. So for instance, that UMass class that he did to a bunch of tuition paying students has no public benefit because it's not open to the public. So we have to look at this new proposed amendment and make sure that it one meets all our criteria, which I believe it does, but also evaluate it for does it still have a comparable public value. So here's what has changed. The dates clearly, this is gone from being an instructional series of videos. It was supposed to be 10 instructional videos for the K through 12 set as kind of an after school thing during the pandemic. It is now kind of a straight up performance of meditative music instead. It certainly doesn't exclude a K to 12 audience, but I think we can all guess that it really is it's not the same K to 12 audience. It has the potential of having a nice long reach particularly because they would be broadcast and then they would be part of the library of on demand videos and Amherst Media's YouTube collection as well. The other kind of big change is this. This was put through as a $2,000 total grant for 10 sessions in 2021. And at this point, he's able to do eight performance broadcast sessions. And he would like to still receive the full 2000 at 250 stipend per broadcast and performance as opposed to 200 per broadcast and performance earlier. Keeping in mind that before the earlier format, it was kind of like you show up, you do a live interactive performance and it's done. Whereas now with this, he needs to go into the studio, record it, Alia, edit it, and then broadcast it. So he does have some different time commitments of his own in doing this work. So I think we can open it up to discussion and questions from there. So I just want to say, and I've only seen, I have not seen the entirety of the correspondence that has gone on, but Julian especially, but Julian and Robin as well have really seen a lot of correspondence out of Yusuf and I think we've worked very hard to try to treat this grantee as fairly as we possibly can, especially given that we've all recognized some language barriers and things and really, I think extended every last possible effort we possibly could to this individual. And so I thought that recap, you captured the salient points very well and there's a lot of other stuff that came and went throughout the process to get to that. The only question that I have that I don't think I heard you address is assuming that we are considering obviously an amendment request, are we thinking about a new deadline to complete these eight recordings? He's put in here that the broadcast would be completed between May 20th and June 24th. And so one could consider that those are the dates and that is the deadline. Knowing the realities of things, I think it wouldn't hurt for us to, you know, I don't know whether it'd be the end of June or middle of July or something like that. Because I certainly don't want him to get into doing all of this and then there's a snag on broadcasting it and that's unforeseen to him. But when I spoke with him earlier, I was clear, I said, listen, these amendments for 2021 should be done. This is a 2021 project, it really should be done. So if we can get something done, it needs to get done now because this is seriously late. Because when I said something about are you sure you can get those program broadcast dates, I don't know, can we leave it up open-ended? No. No, no, no, no. We don't ever really have open-ended projects ever. So at this point, absolutely not. And he was absolutely lovely to speak to. I would really be very pleased to see him follow through on this, but it'll be done when it's done and I'll believe that and see that when that happens at this point. I see Rachel had a question or comment. Yeah, I have two questions. First of all, I'm sure, first of all, thank you all for spending so much time just kind of, you know, trying to accommodate and manage this whole situation. I mean, just from not knowing anything about it, it sounds like we're basically entertaining a new proposal altogether. Pretty much correct. Right. So retroactively for a budget year that's already passed. So that's if I want to look at just kind of the factual components. That's how I interpret it. And then the other, so is that something that we are talking about making an exception for? Because it sounds like this person hasn't received the money, obviously, right? Because we haven't gone into direct granting. And then my... Let me answer that if you can hold the other. I don't have a sense that we're truly making an exception in that so many 2021 grants were modified in so many ways right down to just, you know, some groups took capital expense money to keep their doors open and things like that. So I think as far as exceptions go, yes, it's late. But aside from that, I think it's all within the realm of the kind of revisions that we did. And in the end, there's still a need, you know, an absolute need for music that's being communicated. And he has, you know, the potential to deliver it in the next six weeks. So which I think has more public benefit than, you know, groups that were just keeping their doors open. Right. Okay, thank you. Yeah, because I was going to say that if based on how you, you're explaining this, is that it would seem fair to me if we just had a hard deadline in this case, right? It's like, okay, if this is all done by June 30th or whatever date, you know, we then here's your grant money, you know, based on our agreement or vote or whatever here. And then I guess my other question, which I don't know whether it's relevant or not to this conversation is that you all mentioned that we as a council also granted the same person something for the year that just passed or the cycle that just passed. So that's, that's just a direct grant. So that has no bearing whatsoever on what's already. Yes, I can, I can speak to that too. I didn't want to go too, too far into it. But Yusuf had put a date of completing the 2022 grant as January 10th, 2022, that date has passed. So he will need to amend his 2022 grant as well. I told him as far as, you know, we had to get the 2021 done today, you know, I didn't ask him to put that amendment in today. But he does need to do that. He's clear that there can't be any crossover. So what I believe he's planning to do, sort of the dog is to amend the 2022 with new dates that are after this series. And he also needs to change that because for that one, he's also switching it to a performance format instead of being more of an instructional format. Did anybody understand a word with the dog? I understood. I had a question about that though, because and I agree with you. We'd be best to just make a decision on FY21 and then, you know, sort out slash help him sort out FY22. I do think we need to do that. But just in the interest of having the information out there, the FY22 proposal was essentially an instructional workshop broadcast through Amherst media. And I don't believe it was, it was not like an interactive workshop, was it? Is that correct? I have to say that there's a little bit of poor process on our parts as far as the 2021 and 2022 grants because in preparation for my call with him, I went back and read them, I copied and pasted them. And quite frankly, his 2022 grant is pretty much a copy and paste 2021 grant. I mean, some organizations do that. They do very similar work. But I have to be honest, I don't, I don't feel like we did our proper due diligence on this one to have made as large an award as as we have, especially knowing that he hadn't followed through in the 2021. But that said, you know, he he certainly can put in an amendment request. But at this point, you know, if you want to get legal about it, if he takes that the the check right now and spends it without putting an amendment request for a date other than January 10, he's already out of compliance. So the only reason no, and I agree, the date needs to be figured out certainly, as well as the format and the content. But just based on that alone, he did not deliver anything like this January 10. So he's not compliant, no matter what. The the only difference, well, there might there's probably on multiple, but I know there's a difference between FY 21, doing a series of 10 workshops for school kids, and then FY 22, doing it on zoom, and it was explicitly on zoom, because it was going to be interactive. That was and I remember that being a very exciting thing. And that had not happened when we received the FY 22 application, the FY 22 application for one single event on Amherst media. So that would not be interactive. That would be a presentation of the drumming or 3500, of which we were awarded 700. Robin saying no, of which we awarded 700. We awarded 700, but it wasn't for one. It was very unclear. But I believe he said 300 per performance. Which is why I'm not I don't understand why we give him 700. So it was for two performances. Yeah, it was the same, but 5% more per performance. Okay, let me open the Yeah, you're right. So the narrative. He had a total budget of three 300, because he didn't fill it out properly. And we had even discussed whether we wouldn't just, you know, whether we could exceed the the requested amount, which was 300. And there we made an exception to go above and beyond. But you know, the direct granting there's there's not a whole lot we can do at this point to stop it, although I have advised him that he needs to amend. And when he does amend that that means that we can look at the public benefit of 2022 and award it less if we, you know, feel that that it doesn't have the same merits as what he put out there. And I think as far as where we are with 2021, one, we have to decide if we're willing to let him extend and do this at all period, you know, is it even being, you know, is it a possible option and two, we have to look at, you know, can the total grant amount stand as it is, or do we need to reevaluate it for public benefit. And then at the end of the day, he only gets any kind of reimbursement once everything's done and he's given us all the documentation that we need. So for 2021, we're really very much in control, we just need to decide what we think is appropriate based on all of these significant changes. Robin. Are the performances going to be different? Yes, these are these are different performances. So I agree. Let's just let's get an FY21 decision made and we should go back and parse out 22 at a later date. So talking about 21, I'll just give Robin's question is a really important one, you know, eight unique performances are very different than rebroadcasting the same thing eight times. So that I think is a key first question. The overall award amount maximum, right, we're talking about really the maximum at this point because, you know, it's going to be per performance. The overall award amount staying at 2000. He's also proposing or requesting to up the per performance amount from 200 to 250. My understanding from what I gleamed, Julianne, was that that is largely due to the fact that there is going to be some probably not a lot but some editing on the back end of these of these eight. So, you know, there is a little bit more work there. And then I would also say that previously it was going to be just sort of a turn on your zoom and interact. Now he's going to be working through Amherst media in some way. And so that that could also add some additional I don't I don't know what but some additional back and forth. So I think what I'm hearing is that a perspective motion would be something like, and I think Rachel actually hits on the most important thing, which is, let's set a date and just ask him to submit his reimbursement materials by that date. And, you know, that really will be kind of the most the essence is, is will there be work done. But so I guess I'm hearing, I'm hearing a motion that would involve a date change, a format change from zoom to Amherst media, and a rate change for, you know, a new, a new type of work. So the same overall maximum or total award, but the rate changes based and that rate changes is tied to a new type of work. So is that does that sound like it's is that everything that we really need to sort of decide on? I believe so. Robin. So what he's doing may cost more per session than if he had done what he proposed, he broke the grant, he decided the amount. And that was interactive workshop and that was with students, which to me is very different benefit. So I would even be okay with expending the time a little bit. But I'm not okay with increasing the amount at all. And I've said this back and forth, but not to the whole group. It's just to me, it's probably not legal. It's not fair to every other grantee unless we increase their stipends as well or decrease the work. You know, if he had done what he said he was going to do, he wouldn't have these extra costs. And it's just, you know, we can get audited. And I don't know how we're going to explain that. And to me, it's just, it's just, no, it's just not doable. I'm not sure we need eight or 10 performances, but I'm willing to go along with it at this point. But that part, I'm not. And that's just, you know, me, one person. So questions or comments on this, I mean, you know, I take Robin's point, I think we're likely, you know, it'd be better to vote on a single motion rather than, you know, so the goal here, I think should be to try to get a single motion, you know, to then communicate back to the grantee. So it's going to be hard, you know, it'd be hard to do those things. Go ahead. Can we take a, you know, just a soft indication rather than a motion of who would support going forward yes or no at all? With the date, the number and the amount? No, no, just, just in general, who supports allowing any kind of amendment or do we just reject the amendment outright regardless? Is there anybody who wants to outright reject the amendment? Okay. I think that's clear. So then it really comes down to, you know, we need a motion as far as what the appropriate compensation is given the public benefit has changed, the audience has changed. It's not instructional. It's, you know, performance and meditative music and it's many lovely things, but you know, does that end up impacting the public benefit and the compensation for it? Cool. I was going to say that I think there's clear public benefit with the amended proposal. I like the idea that's going to go out through Amherst media that people will be able to see it. And I would support just doing it at 200 per performance, keep the rate the same. And, you know, that's, I think we've been very flexible. I think that would be fair. Yeah, and I was actually going to suggest the same thing. And I would also say that eight is a number that I don't know, you know, he originated that number. That's his number. I think us saying that, you know, we'll give you 200 per and you can do up to 10 is reasonable within the parameters of the grant as well. Well, I would just make the motion given the way you all just said that however many you're able to produce by this date is what we're going to pay for because we have our funding and our budget, you know, to kind of account for right at the end. So that's, that would be my, my suggestion, I guess, you know, for the 200 per session, but you only do three will give you 600 by this day. But if you do 11, we can only give you 2,000. That's the one difference. Yeah. Well, Rachel, that sounds like a motion and I'm not seeing anybody who's indicating, you know, opposition or so do you want to, do you want to make that as a motion? One thing, do we want to put a minimum though? Because otherwise, I don't know if we're going to get any. And that's up to him then, right? Right. But if you put a minimum of, he has to do at least three or five or whatever, up to 10. Or just leave it open. I mean, that's one if you want, add the minimum. I mean, I hate to have him do two and not give him anything because we said the minimum was three, I guess is my, I don't see a risk and just leaving it, you know, per broadcast performance at that point. He just, he does not, he does not. If he does one, he does one, you know. Right. It's really up to him then to, you know, to say, okay, this is the timeframe in which I can, I have to work and this is what I can reasonably produce. And I will be reimbursed at 200 up to 10 within that period, right? So that that seems fair, given what you outlined in terms of, you know, giving people more leeway because of how everyone's had to operate. Yeah, I agree. I mean, Rich, if you want to make that as a motion, I guess I would ask Cole, as a no-taker, if you want to try to formulate that. But, but I think the three pieces are clear to everybody, right? The, well, actually deadline, I mean, I would be comfortable pushing the deadline to, you know, being of all the things that I think need to be, you know, sticklers on. I'm more flexible in the deadline personally, you know, and saying even July 15th or something, just for the sake of, you know, good faith, but deadline, number of performances and rate, those are the three pieces that we're kind of agreeing on, right? Sure, Robin, for your purposes, is there a deadline in terms of what you have to file for a certain grant cycle? Not really. There's no annual reports for audits in terms of... Now, what we do need to have done before we go to the next grant cycle is that the money left over, we can use it for the next few years because it's really not fair to withhold that money. It's not going to get used. So, but, um, yeah, town-wise there isn't, the money has been set aside for it's not being used for anything else until we release it, by paying it or just releasing it back into our funds for the next grant year. So... So, what's the date on that then? And like, when do we want, because I'll make the motion right now. I just need to know what date to say. I think July 15th sounds good, like an asset. That's cool, everyone. That's cool. That's good. Sure. So then I'll motion to approve the amendment request with the change in form and forum with the exception that his fee will be $200 per performance and he will have until July 15th to complete the performances and submit a reimbursement request. I think we needed a maximum of 10 performances and maximum $2,000. With a maximum of 10 performance and $2,000. I'll second that call. Okay, I'm gonna do a roll call vote unless there's any other discussion. So, I'm an I, Julian. I. Christie. I. Robin. I. Arthur. Yes. And Aliyah. Yes. And I was gonna ask... Did you get right? She made... Oh, I'm sorry. I seconded. Okay. For next year and future grant cycles, now that we have reimbursement funding, are we going to like be keeping closer track of like grant projects and if they're, if they're using the money, like if they didn't use the money, because I know, like, would there be like a spreadsheet or something to keep track of that, that we would look at while doing the grant cycle, or do you think that would like metal with the process of looking at things with fresh eyes? No, it's a good question. And it's actually a little trickier now that we're doing direct granting because what we really have to do is, you know, at the end of the cycle, we need to verify that. And this is, I think that the date is very clear to the grantees. We need to verify they've all submitted their final reports and that... So, instead of them giving us documentation, and then we know we can release the funds, we release the funds when we get them, and they provide us the supporting documentation at the end. So, that's a lot of what we were struggling with in making the decision was, oh geez, you know, now we are going to have to, you know, really be on top of these final reports. And at some point, you know, if somebody is unwilling or unable to submit the final report, you know, we have to ask for the money back. So, it's... You're absolutely right. It's even more on us to keep track. Julian, please. And yet at the same time, it's been complicated because, you know, essentially anyone who has a future date for a performance at the time the checks are going out has the benefit of the doubt that they'll just do it. And people who have an earlier date. So, Yusufa had a, you know, January 10th date. We can't get the benefit of the doubt because it didn't happen. And yet it's... You're strangely singling someone out because they chose an earlier date in it. So, it's an interesting situation that we're in. And, you know, I... Going into this, I've never wanted to, you know, police the grantees. You know, I want to try to extend everybody the best benefit of the doubt and be supportive of them. But I think it's a good call out, Leah, that by the time we get to the next round and people are reapplying, we're really going to want to know what their follow-through was. Yeah. And I would just say that that's something we should really think about hard for next year is... I agree. And I don't think it's a fair... It's just a loophole or a wrinkle in the process that, you know, there's however many months between our decision and the actual checks going out. And people whose performances fall within that window, I would hate to hold their... You know, I don't think that's fair. I think we need to reevaluate how we're going to handle that. I don't think we can solve it right now. But I think we do need to reevaluate it. Robin? You're muted, Robin. Is that better? Yes. Okay. So I received a contract for something supposed to happen in December that I'm pretty sure didn't happen. And so I, you know, sent email and said, could you let me know if this happened, if it did send documentation, if it didn't and you want to try to have this, you know, December 2022, then just submit a request for extension. You know, I haven't heard back from this person. There's been several attempts. But basically if I know it was supposed to have happened and they haven't submitted the final report, which some people have, then I just ask them to submit documentation or request an extension. And I haven't submitted those yet until I get one of those. So that's just the way, you know, it goes. It will, you know, next year it won't be as obvious if we do direct funding because it will kind of be any other end of the cycle. But, you know, and it is being tracked. I'm tracking it and it's tracking it. But we'll see what happens. This goes on if there's a lot that it looks like didn't happen. You know, we have a lot of grantees. The towns I contact don't have this many grantees. So it wasn't quite this large of a piece of work for them to follow. And some have split it and assigned different ways to follow, you know, you know, and they've done their game and all of that. But I don't know if we're going to have to do that. I don't think we're really going to have to after any people. I think most people are doing their pigs. They want to. And they are submitting the reports. You know, I think, oh, sorry. I mean, and I think you're doing the right thing now. What I think we ought to do is we ought to consult with MCC before this next grant cycle opens up about how strictly we are monitoring slash policing the date of the event in this, in the new direct granting model. Because there's a part of me that just says, you know, you make a compelling case to us. We review it. We award it. Then you at the end of the year prove to us that you did it and our, you know, and it just takes the pressure off of us to, to as, you know, as a couple of people have said police when, you know, did this thing actually happen at, you know, 9 a.m. on the 23rd of February, you know, we gave you the money because we believe in what you want to do, you know, and at the end of the year, you prove to us that you did that thing. So I'm not saying that's necessarily the position I want to take. I just think we should explore with MCC because I get the sense looking at other towns at their grant guidelines that ours are probably more rigorous or something than others. So just, just a conversation. Leah, please. Yeah. I was first going to say it's interesting because when we made, when we talked about direct granting, I think that was like August and it definitely looked like very different like trajectory for COVID at that time. And then kind of as like we neared into winter, I think, like I feel like when we were in August, we were in a really good place. And like, I thought this year was going to be like very different with like venue cancellations and stuff. And this year again, we've had just like unpredictable surges and stuff. So I'm really hopeful that next year there will be less of that. But like, I mean, I guess you just can't do anything to prevent that. But it's just like hard, it's hard to have a thing that's so dependent off of sticking to the location and the date when that's just like changing so much and it's like hard for everyone. But also how are people proving it? Like, what does that process look like? And what are we looking for in that? So we can forward out to, oh, go ahead, Robin. No, it's pretty much the same as reimbursement. They just have to show, you know, defensive budgets, invoices for, you know, people or rentals or sound or whatever it is, and that it happened. And most people also submit, you know, how they promoted it. So we'll get flyers and, you know, some people send an entire budget thing. Some people send, you know, two pieces of paper. Some people say, oh, you could, you know, see it on YouTube. This is, you know, and it happened now or a copy of, you know, the review in the paper or really anything that just shows it is okay. And it's really not any different than the reimbursement. Yeah. So just that we know it happened. And there's a, there's a, there's a grant final report. It's just a simple one page form that they fell out. And then we asked them for accompanying, like Robin said, you know, receipts and other evidence. So I want to move us along a little bit just in the interest of time. I know on the agenda, we had indicated sort of a recap of the accessibility session. I will say recap is fabulous. You know, Charles does Baldwin does a wonderful job with the content. He put together a fabulous slide deck. We recorded it. We have his slides. I'm just waiting for them. They were sharing a lot of links to resources in the chat. And I'm just waiting for them to send me that list of links. And then I'll ask Cindy to post, we'll post it all on our website and we'll have it there for as a resource for folks. I genuinely think if anybody seriously wants to explore this topic, that that session will be of value to our grantees. And it's something that we could, I was thinking in next year's award letters, we could just link to it and be like, you know, here is, here's a really useful, you know, overview of accessibility in the arts kind of a thing. And I think the action item that I want to put out there, and we probably, I don't think tonight's the night we're going to make a decision on action here, but you know, we do have funds set aside about, you know, 20, we have a roughly 2,500 plus others if we need it to fund a fall event around accessibility and very loosely defined. We were hoping that, you know, this previous session would give us some ideas in terms of what we're going to do at that session. So, you know, I guess I would, I don't know that we have any clear action we can take, but maybe just a little discussion of what we want to, you know, what direction we want to steer the ship in terms of that event. I don't have, sorry. Go ahead, Jan. I was just going to say that I love the idea of, you know, including it in materials that we're sending out to grantees, both before they apply and in their award letter. It would be great. Robin, Rachel. I'm sorry, Rachel. Yeah, I just wanted to say that it was a really, really good session. And I'm going to have to leave at seven o'clock. I don't know how long this meeting is supposed to go for, but I just wanted to say that in the context of accessibility, because I had sent everybody an email about, are we going to try to set a regular time for meetings going forward? And as I thought more about the Charles's presentation, I realized that there might be a number of factors we need to consider if we were going to try to set a regular meeting time, because this time might not work for everybody. So that was just something I wanted to throw out there in case you guys do get to that discussion after I've had to go. So, but I mean in the context of, you know, all of us having different functional limitations or not, you know, that something maybe to consider if we want to have regular meeting times. That's all. Thanks. And I'll see you all later if I need to go at seven. Well, you know, I'm fine if others would like to jump that topic up since Rachel, you know, you brought up an email and you're bringing it up now. I'm fine to open that now if we want to pause on the accessibility piece for a second and just talk about that. Do you have a proposal or thoughts in terms of, you know, how we should handle this? Rachel? I just thought that if we have some general guidelines in terms of what we want to consider. So, for example, do we need to meet every month? That's a start, right? I mean, I know that that was something that was introduced relatively, I mean, I don't know, but during the grant cycle, yes, we're meeting more regularly, but in between grant cycles is do we want to have meetings every month? That's like the first question. And then my initial thought when I asked the group was just more like, okay, it helps us all to plan to be able to put the dates in the calendar early. But then I thought maybe it can't just be like first Tuesday of every month if that just doesn't work for some of us. So it could just be, you know, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know what people's schedules are like. So it was just a question that I had. And we don't have to take up more time discussing it today if the only one who thinks, oh, that might be helpful to know in advance for our own respective calendars. So that's, yeah, I don't have proposals in terms of when that meeting time should be, but I don't know if we need to be meeting every month as a whole group. That's just a question. Julia? Yeah. So generally, I'm a champion of, you know, setting a time monthly and then it's just there. And I think a lot of bodies like us do operate in exactly that way for planning purposes. As far as do we need to meet every month? No, but having a scheduled meeting time doesn't mean that we are required to meet. We would only meet if there's something that we need to discuss, deliberate and vote on. And what's happened is in years past, yes, there was, you know, maybe even a six month or longer lull where there weren't any meetings. But in the, these rolling changes that we've had with COVID and that are continuing, we are finding that there is some amendment or something that we seem to need to vote on every month. I'd have to look back at all of our agendas since the grant deliberations closed out. But I don't think there's been a single month that we could have skipped voting because we had to respond to grantees. Now, we could just, you know, let them wait. And that could happen. If we can't get a quorum together, then they're going to have to wait. But in general, you know, I would support kind of having a regularly scheduled meeting and only meeting if there's a need to meet, not just meetings to have meetings. But as far as what the right time for that is, the makeup of this council is going to change quite a bit in the next couple of months. So one of the reasons the timing is going to change is different people come and go who have different scheduling needs. So I think Matt's work to really accommodate, you know, a large group of us, a group that's gotten larger, I think, and then it was when I first started. And that's, you know, so that we can all attend. But yeah, there's no simple answer. I don't think we'll quite solve it tonight. Maybe we could at least find out if everybody agrees that we'd like to try to get to a point of a regular, you know, one monthly time slot and see what we can do. I mean, I'm a planner. So when I hear, when I hear the notion of just getting a calendar out there, or just a recurring every first Tuesday at six or whatever, you know, even if it's an inconvenient time, if it's every first Tuesday at four, and I can plan that a couple months in advance, you know, that's that's very attractive to me. And, you know, that does typically we do tend to meet. Well, no, that's not true. It's usually it's Tuesdays, but but it drifts beginning or end of the month. I have to say to echo what Julian's point, I haven't had a set a meeting yet with ACC, where we haven't had at least one grantee thing that they required some action. And I take the point about letting them wait. And I think it's something to if we explore that, you know, some of these questions with MCC around, you know, maybe we don't need to amend, you know, you want to go Saturday instead of Sunday, you know, maybe we don't need to formally amend every every last performance date in the future. I would be comfortable with a more hands off approach to grantee management. Honestly, I mean, I do feel like sometimes we're particularly for people who want our approval, you know, we really get sucked into a lot of a lot of approving that that maybe we don't need to within the MCC parameters, you know, I think I gather just looking at websites that different cultural councils have different approaches to it. So I think I think those are all strong points. Strongest point, Matt, I heard was that you said Tuesdays at four, let's do that. I have to admit that with with my narcolepsy, when when, you know, the later they start, the harder they are for me. Yeah, it's I flag and I'm not at my best. That's my limitation, you know, I also want to be there when other people are there because no meeting's good about only I show up. But I if it's possible that, you know, we could get them a bit earlier and scheduled ahead, I would firmly endorse that. And I'm also with you that if we can structure things so that we can be less involved and just be more supportive of the artists, and I love that. And I don't think we need to have a stranglehold on things as long as they're coming through for the community. So it's dangerous, I feel like we're getting dangerously close to making a motion here that we do, or even if you don't even call it a motion, but just, you know, coming to an agreement. And I threw out four. And I know Joy has said that's not available to her, but Joy also is likely roll. I mean, I hate to share this without her being here, but she's likely to be moving out of Amherst the next couple months. She's shared with us very openly. So, you know, it's hard to accommodate. You can't accommodate everybody, I think is a problem. And we just do our best with it. But I think that being said, if somebody was was going to be staying on for another three-year term, three-year term, and they said, there's no way that I could do a meeting at two or four, just given my work constraints, we'd have to respect that as well, you know, and sort of keep on working outside the box. So, and unfortunately, I'm looking at the screen, and we know Cole is leaving, we know Arthur's leaving, you know, so I guess there's four of five of us here who, you know, who would have a vested say in that or a vested stake anyway in the discussion. Maybe we, you know, maybe we come back to it next month. Cole, I see your hand is up, but, you know, I don't know. I don't know if we're ready to make that judgment yet. I was just going to say that anytime that you do choose, it might be worth thinking about, you know, different groups of people and what would be most accessible to them, highest number of people. Yeah, absolutely, absolutely. I mean, in the public, you know, we don't get a lot of public attendance, but that's always a factor as well, so something to bear in mind. So we can just wait until we have new members on board, like later in the year, hopefully, right, to, to revisit this. Okay, thank you. No, thank you for bringing it up. I think it's a really important question, Rachel. So if, if nobody objects, I, we do have an action item, speaking of grantee correspondence, we do have an action item that Robin flagged for us late. It's a fairly simple one, but I feel like it's something we want to make sure we take care of. So does anybody mind if we, if we move matries? Good idea. Thank you. She provides an explanation. The short version is that she wants to move the date of her grant from May 21st to November is all she says is November. So, you know, I think the motion would probably be December 1st as kind of the new deadline, so to speak. So are we proposing that? I'll second it. I mean, she gave, you know, basically it's COVID reasons. Right. And, and not being able to get into the tour museum or something when she was in India and she won't, she's, I guess, to go back in November or something, but. Cole, I'm going to type her name into the chat for the sake of, I don't, I'm sure I mispronounced it. The authors, this was the thing on to Gore, and she very much wants to do it. I've had a whole bunch of back and forth with her. So she just couldn't get access to materials she was hoping to use because it was close to COVID in India. So I guess I motioned, I guess I motioned, a motion emerged from me to move her deadline to December 1st and Robin seconded. Certainly we can have further discussion if folks want to hear more about the rationale. I think it makes sense. But if not, shall we just do a roll call? Okay. Cole. Yes. Julianne. Yes. Christy. Yes. Rachel. Yes. Leah. Yes. And Arthur. Yes. Okay, so we are unanimous there. Thank you very much for letting me bump that up a little bit. And I'll let her know. Thank you, Robin. Right. That's an important piece. So, and Julianne obviously will follow up with you, Sufa. Yeah. Okay. Second. Yeah, you second. I thought. Or just one, because there were two, but. Oh, a second. No, just you, Sufa and a tree that I know, that I know the only other item that unless if you catch it, please, you know, point it at the only other item that I put on the agenda. And actually, I wasn't sure if this is something that needs further discussion or not, but just following up on that. Immers media showcase footage question. Julianne, I don't know if there's anything further. Yep. This, this will be brief. I finally was able to, you know, get buy-in from everyone, but I think that was maybe Friday last week and I haven't had a chance to reach out to Jim over at Amherst Media yet. I will reach out to him. It might be a little slow going because I think they're moving sometime soon. They're building, you know, but I think they're being addicted, which didn't sound very promising. Oh, let's hope it's not that bad. Anyway, yes, I will reach out to him tomorrow because I haven't been able to get to it yet and get into the, you know, do they have a release form and some of the content that the artists in particular didn't want to have seen and all of that. And also just find out what they want to do and make it clear that there's no additional funding, you know, that goes along with this. Thanks, Rachel, by that. They asked for it. They're welcome to it. We're welcome to work with them, but we need to better define it. Great. I'm just happy to hear that that's moving forward and I think that's, you know, they're a key partner in showing off the great work that our grantees do, so I'm looking forward to that. And I actually went in myself in person today just to see the facility and, you know, it's up and running and hopefully they have a new home base to land safely soon. You should get it for payment. I haven't received anything from you for payment for your project. No, I haven't. Go ahead, Leah. Oh, I said, I think Cole was applying for that. I'm not really sure. I haven't sent anything in. So I'm glad you haven't received anything. And Leah, you and I should speak about it if you want. Yeah, because, you know, we'd like to pay you. Absolutely. Robin, dare I ask, do we have any word on the release of funds where that stands? Oh, I sent you a whole email on it. I mean, I sent you an email with money and fireworks and yes, for the group, for the group. So, yes, so we finally got the contract and then we finally got the money and the checks went out last Friday. And I know at least one person, one grantee who received it yesterday, Julie Auntie, you know, Amherst, Bel-A received it. Okay, so I think it literally was yesterday as well that they received it. It went up early, you know, so that's pretty fast. So hopefully everybody has received their checks and it was 56 of them. Great. Wonderful. One dropped. And then there's three or something was still dealing with something like, I mean, I don't know, I have to do the figures, but my figures and Holly's figures of the numbers worked, you know, we have the same number. So 56 went out and there are 64 grants. Excellent work. I know, Robin, you had to chase that down and it took quite a bit of follow up with a lot of different parties. So thank you so much for your efforts there as well as while it was delayed, there was quite a bit of correspondence with folks kindly asking where their money was. So thank you and even really busy and everyone will be thrilled. So thank you. Thank you. So I'm sure if someone doesn't receive it soon, they'll, you know, get back to us. But as far as I know, they, all of those went out. No, that's great. Yeah, I knew that the funds were with the town, but I'm glad to know that the checks came out. So somebody emailed me during the meeting saying, where's my check? So I'll forward that along to you. Yeah, send it to me. I guess too. So yeah. Yeah. Okay. So did you, did anybody, did you think of, was there was there something else that I missed on? No, including, okay. So taking the point that I think Rachel made and, I mean, you know, we would just not meet until, you know, the first Tuesday in July, although July is not a great, July I'm traveling all month. So that's not a great month for me to meet. But if folks want to meet in June, I'm happy to. I think we need further discussion on the, on the accessibility event. Frankly, I think, you know, there's definitely some, some discussion that needs to happen there. But I'm comfortable either way. Do you folks want to meet in June for that sake and for the sake of ongoing grant questions? Well, to Julian's point, maybe we write that we write it in now we schedule it. And then if we decide we don't need it, we don't, we don't meet. I think that makes sense. So that would be June 7th. I could do four o'clock on June 7th. I have an appointment with my sleep doctor at four. That is pure, pure irony there. That's great. I could, I could do four o'clock on June 8th. I could do that. Yeah. Or I could do, I could do five on, on the 7th if Tuesdays are better. I do work until five typically. So five would be better for me. Great. Okay. So five on the 7th, Tuesday the 7th. Sure. And Cindy, Tuesday and Wednesday are your days, correct, that you're available? Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday, and I can sometimes do Mondays if I need to. Okay. All right. Well, why don't we say five o'clock on June 7th? And then, you know, if truly nothing trickles along, then we can, we can cancel and reschedule. Okay. Well, thanks very much, everybody. I appreciate this meeting and, you know, just all the work that everybody does. Cole, Cole, will you be coming in June? I don't want, I don't want your last meeting to be this and we just don't even get to say goodbye. This will be my last meeting. You will be missed. You will be missed very much. And everything you've done. Thank you. It's been a good time. And I wrote a column in my student newspaper just last week telling people to join this committee and take my spot. So we'll see. Awesome. Would you send a link to that? Yeah, I can. We're going to name and call with this. If you're leaving before the end of what your term would be, it would be best if you just wrote an official letter of resignation that we can submit to the town. Yeah, I was planning on writing one. And we went look for numbers. We're going to need quite a few, like four, I think. Because Jenny is also leaving at the end of her term. So best of luck to you, Cole. Best of luck to you, Cole. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good night, everybody. Good night, everyone. I have one last quick question mostly for Robin. I remember last year the cultural district did, I forget what it was called, but it was like outdoor arts thing. Do you know what that's happening again and if they're looking for volunteers? We will be looking for volunteers for something. We're meeting next week and apparently Matt is also joining the cultural district. Pretty much talking about that thing. Yes? Cool. Yeah, keep me posted because it was just like very nice to be like involved in a thing. So yeah. Yeah, we definitely, I mean, I had been asked about that. I said, well, what is it for? Then I was like, oh, we don't know yet. So it might be something inside and it might be something outside. And yes, we will need help. So yeah. I think you're great. Okay. Good night, everybody. Thank you, everyone. Good night, everyone. Take care. Thanks.