 All right. And I am going to call the August 17th meeting of the governance organization and legislation committee to order at 902 pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 this meeting will be conducted via remote means members of the public are able to access the meeting in real time via zoom or by telephone. And now I'm just going to take a moment to make sure everybody can be heard and can hear, and I'll start with you Mandy. Present. Nica. Present. Welcome back. I'm glad you're here. Jennifer. Present. And Pat. Present. Yeah, that was a no particular order and you can hear me as well. And so we are going to begin today's meeting by reviewing the bylaws that we have to review and then I've asked Pamela and Jennifer, if they're able to join us I gave them 930 said it would likely be 945 but we'll see how quickly we'll move through these. So, and I also wanted to make a note about the packet. So Athena. Had to have everything in the packet by last Thursday because she was going to be away this week and so there may be some items that aren't in the public packet yet that will be added after the meeting those two items actually it's only one item. It's a message that I got from Guilford mooring. It's in our pop packet now but it won't be in the public packet so when it's being referred to. If anybody is listening, which we don't have any attendees but I like to pretend sometimes. Then that that they can look at you'll be able to look at that when when Athena gets back in the packet. So, Mandy, do you want to start with bringing back the soliciting. Sorry, I'm trying to do too many things. Yes, let me find let me get my program working. Yeah, take your time. So while Mandy is doing that I'll just review that today will be reviewing bylaw 3.39 street numbering houses will be coming back to bylaw 3.36 soliciting. We should be reviewing bylaw 3.4 snow and ice and will be returning to bylaw 3.22 discharging of firearms with additional information from chief Livingstone. And then once we've completed the review of those items will move on to our equity lens review discussion. Sorry about that. Take your time. My computer is basically freezing. So let me see if I can get this open somewhere else. Do you want me to I don't I could also do it. I've now got it pulled up in a different window. It just took a while. And Anika just so you know, this is a bylaw that was that Mandy had asked for some changes on at a town council meeting that I both, I believe both you and I missed. And then we identified we had some questions last time that needed to be worked out and so now Mandy's bringing it back today to discuss it and if you have any questions about it along the way because I know I did please just let us know. So what is on the screen is solely the parts that I asked to change. This is a long time in coming in terms of a request from. I received a request a while ago from the board of licensed commissioners or at least the former chair who's now the vice chair. To remove the actual fee numbers from bylaws and give the fee setting authority to an appropriate place mainly the board of licensed commissioners there were two bylaws currently that set the fees in the bylaw. So maybe that one for soliciting the fee was set as $10 well if it's in a bylaw it's much harder to change than if you just give the authority to another entity within the bylaw. And so the question last meeting was soliciting the fee for the permit or registration is actually the registration is actually done by the police department the registration certificate is issued by the police department so I still have questions as to, is the board the appropriate place to be setting the fee, or does the police, or should the police department be setting the fee. And so I went to the chief, and I asked him that question and said, do you want to set the fee, or are you okay with the board setting the fee, and the chief basically came back and said, The board is fine. I don't care. And if it's me it's never changing. He's a softy. And then I attended the board of licensed commissioners meeting the next day, where they were talking about both of these and they had I told them what the chief had said. They had no problem with either of these this is one of two the first reading for the second one was Monday night but on the board didn't take a formal vote on their opinions on whether they should set these fees. But what they did do was actually vote the fees pending change in the bylaw by the council. So I took that to mean they're perfectly fine with having that authority, even though they didn't vote till say, you know to formally tell the council hey we're okay with this. So that's the status of this one. Great. And so what you're looking for now is a recommendation from us that this as it stands, although what we want so we're going to does this. This is how it stands right now right what would, or we're going to change the no, no, what are we doing here. So that is what would be deleted or added and GL is tasked with clarity consistency and action ability but also recommendation on the substance for these. Okay. Yeah so instead of saying resident fee $10 for annual registration non resident fee $5 for a 60 day registration. So that would be deleted and it would say fee the Board of License Commissioners shall set shall shall set the annual registration fee for soliciting in accordance with and GL chapter 40 section 22f. Okay. And Mandy, the question on there have been so many bylaws we've been discussing my brain is, but the question on whether this was okay through KP law which I haven't. So how do we want to think about that. And that is a lot, you know, when the bylaw review committee reviewed the bylaws they had a question about this in general, and particularly as it relates to I think nonprofits or political campaigns or something. So this does not deal with that, but that question was, hey, if we're going to modify those things. Maybe we should see from KP law whether what what the legalities of it all are with respect to MGL right like yeah. Okay, I see it. Anika's hand so let's go to Anika and then come back. I did have a chance to read this and the soft to comment. So but my question was this seemed fairly cut and dry so I was wondering you know it's not, were there any objections to it at all or was it just a matter of getting clarity. The board had no objections to taking over the authority, the police department, the chief had no objections to giving the board the fee setting authority this does not change who enforces the bylaw it just changes who can set the fee. And just to make it clear this was helpful for me and you can to know that this and one other bylaw were two of all of the bylaws where the fee was set within the bylaw as opposed to, is that right Mandy as opposed to being. And these objective was to bring all of the bylaws into accordance with one another and have a sort of standard way of doing things. Yeah 3.8 was the other one we had the first reading on that on Monday, and there's five or six in the bylaws themselves where the bylaw gives the authority to the town council, the board of license commissioners, the town clerk. The health department has some of them, but these are the only two that set it within the bylaws still and so it was a goal to be consistent that any fees are set outside of the bylaws and the bylaws just give the authority to the appropriate committee or person. Jennifer. Yeah, so maybe just to put a conversation for another time but it came up during the waste taller bylaw discussion on Monday, you know somebody asked why is the police officers doing this enforcement, so I don't know if that's has to be there by state law, or, you know, since we want to move away from the police into non criminal activities. You know, is that something we might want to consider, I don't know. I suppose you're not you can't put enforcement. We don't want crest to do this, I just is. So I guess my question is, is, does that have to be there is that a state requirement. I mean, we wouldn't use our police officers to go collect the fine if it wasn't paid that's how I read that. Of course go ahead Mandy. Yeah, but Pat you can answer if you want. Okay, go ahead. So this has both a criminal and a non criminal criminal enforcement can only be by police officers so if you want criminal enforcement. That's there. And so if you want only criminal enforcement, it's just the police right. But if you want an option for a civil fine, you have to identify who would write that ticket. And, you know, there might be differences of opinion but I always think that if you have a criminal fine and a non criminal fine, at a minimum you want the police to also be able to do the non criminal fine so that they don't have to if they need to write a ticket have to do it criminally, because if they're not listed under the non criminal, they can only write a criminal ticket, they can't. So if we didn't want a criminal enforcement, we could potentially say delete criminal enforcement completely and then choose someone else for non criminal but if you're going to leave criminal in, in some sense to me at least it makes sense to leave police officers as the non criminal so that they have that choice. Okay, so I'm being really I was being too literal because I didn't understand that so we're talking about writing the ticket we're not talking about going and knocking on the door saying you're late your payment. No, this is the writing of the ticket. You know we weren't talking about the police coming out we were saying if, if you violate it Oh I see the police will issue the citation. Got it. Thank you. I do still think it's a fair point to consider because even if it is writing a ticket I mean we're talking about limiting interaction between the police and the residents, if not needed. And I think that whether it's writing a ticket we know that things can, you know, escalate or change or whatever and that's that's no disrespect to our police department or anyone but just to say that, you know, I think if the goal is, and I am feeling as I'm looking at the bylaws more and more that they all need to be reviewed in terms of this now that we're moving in a direction of alternate policing services and that we have some goals around this. So, I'm curious what the committee feels because I don't feel like the question about whether this is in accordance with MGL has been answered, necessarily. And I also am feeling like we need to review these for the criminal enforcement piece, whether we want the police to be involved in this so Mandy do you see a situation where we can recommend this as you've, you know, as we're laying it out here but then bring it back at a later time for additional review on those other matters. So, I'd like to hear from Pat before I answer that. Yeah. Yeah. One of the things that's true is that this is about not necessarily residents who are coming in soliciting but people who are coming in knocking on doors that have been identified as elderly I'm just using that as an example and they are doing scamming. So there is a criminal element, but one of the things that we could do because it's Cress is going to be able. I'm going to check this Cress is going to be able to give tickets. Is that correct. Only if we list them under non criminal disposition and one of the things that we might be able to do to simplify this is saying enforcement by community safety officers. Because then it covers both Cress and covers. The other thing is there are, you know, yes anything can escalate but there's no guarantee with Cress that things aren't going to escalate they just don't carry guns, and we haven't had that as an issue so I think I think we can be overly cautious. I think I saw an Anika's hand go up Mandy do you want to hold off on a response to that until. Anika. Okay, I just want to make sure I understand I could be I think I've gone off track here, or my mind has anyway. So if this is soliciting and it's disregard my story if it's way off track. But if I am knocking on a door and I shouldn't be right. And the police come right or is this you know how it works to do issue a ticket to find something to me, and they find that what I'm doing is not criminal. So am I to wait while a Cress officer is called it. What am I held how do they do that I mean or am I just really misunderstanding how the difference would be and how, what would you do if let's just say you, the police come and it is not a criminal issue. How then and when does Cress become involved. If it's. If it's a non criminal issue if you know whatever, then the police would say okay see you later. I mean, if Cress is if it goes to dispatch dispatch is making the determination about whether to call the police or to call Cress. So if a Cress person came and there's no nothing terrible going on Oh, I thought I could do this I'll go get the license, say bye bye see you later there's there would be no fine no criminal or non criminal necessarily. So misunderstanding, and I don't mean to get too far into the weeds about this but if there's a misunderstanding and it's Cress and they need the police it would just they would press have to be like okay this is criminal or not authorized so you can go. Or we have to wait because this is criminal and we have to wait for the police and do they have the authority to do that. I'm just generally question like it seems like it would make sense if it's the dispatch if they understand and they know who to send out. I'm just questioning whether are we opening another kind of kind of worms with that transition. If the call is misunderstood. We can you hear me. Sorry, I think we should look at mgl 40 section 22 F I think, to me this is raising a larger question, again, of what bylaws are using the police for both criminal and non criminal, and whether that those bylaws need to be updated based on a new lens that we're using, and I. So what I would ask for is someone who has more experience like Pat or Mandy to share how we might request a broader review, right happen that specific to this lens that we're right and this appears in many a number of bylaws, right, instead of doing a bylaw by bylaw do it as yeah, just one we're doing a uniform look at everything for criminal and non criminal where the police is listed and who do we need to bring into that conversation Mandy please. mgl chapter 40 section 22 F is completely different from a fine. So that section, we're talking about two different things. mgl chapter 40 section 22 F is who has the authority to set a fee to issue a license. Not who has the authority to issue a fine or a ticket when something has been violated. There are two different things. So the proposal I've that that this came to the GL originally on is who has the authority to set a fee to issue a license or a registration or a permit. What the conversation has moved to is who should enforce any violations, so any failure to get that license to register, who has the ability to enforce it. I agree absolutely that it might need to be a larger conversation and we shouldn't do it in one at a time, but I would caution us. Our crest director when directly asked at Monday's meeting by me about his thoughts on crest being able to issue tickets. And should we be looking at bylaws to give crest the authority to issue tickets, as in potentially this case, his response was, we don't want that authority, because we don't want to be seen as someone who issues tickets. We want a more congenial relationship. And so I caution us as GL from going and saying or as a council and saying well we don't want the police doing it so let's just give it to crest where that might actually be against what our crest director really wants, even if we want to see it not by the police. So I think in some sense some of the questions that could be going on later are failure to register should there be a fine. Do we even need the bylaw then, as Pat said sometimes they are used these solicitors are used to actually scam. And so it's for each one of these I think it's a larger question of, do you even need a fine if so, should it be criminal and if not is there a logical person to issue the fine outside of a police officer for wage theft we said the logical person is I think the building inspector or the health department or something because they might actually be in the building, seeing the signs not posted. So here, I think the question would be who's going to show up, if someone is called, if the homeowner or the renter or the tenant who just had their door knocked is called or, you know, the daughter or son of someone who just got scam. They call who's going to respond. I think those are the questions we need to be asking, and we need to be asking them. So here are bylaws, not looking necessarily at each one because we need, I think, press there we need the police department there we probably need our building commissioner there. He's sometimes some of the ones that we're like oh just give it to the regional services. They might not want it either. You know, and so I think, I think it's definitely a bigger question but I would caution us from doing anything without speaking to the people who would most likely get or remove that enforcement from or be responding to complaints under these particular bylaws, or any of the bylaws there's because there's so many different ones with waste waste hauling the complaint probably goes to the board of health so they might be the right like I think we have to think about where that phone call would go. I very much agree with that. And I think what I'm thinking about is we're moving from a system that maybe is penalizes people to a system that tries to rehabilitate or educate people I think we're trying to do that. And so, if we want to do that I think that the questions that Mandy is is raising are the right questions to think about not necessarily just to take everyone and dump it on to press. But to really look at whether enforcement is needed, both criminal and non criminal and then who would be the appropriate places for that to happen so. The committee is in agreement about doing such a review of all of the bylaws with that lens. Is that something that we can that I can just add to the GL agenda for discussion on how we might structure that and who we might, you know, invite to that conversation. Is that something that we take to Lynn and ask to have it be discussed at the council and referred back to GL. How would you recommend either anyone really but Pat or Mandy who's been here a little longer. I simply see it within GL's capability to and GL's charge to do that type of review. A holistic review if it was we're looking at one specific one maybe but if we're doing a holistic review I think that's within our governance charge right. It is really about how are we going to govern and all. So I would say GL wants to do it GL can do it without a formal referral. But it might take some planning and looking as to which ones to look at and stuff. I'm having some nougaly feeling that I can't quite articulate to what you're saying I agree that the bylaws need to be looked at and, and, but I. There's something bothering me about, well we're trying to move away from the police and having that and, and what Crest purposes is and, and really we're just going to be nice. I'm very, very badly paraphrasing what you said, Michelle, very badly. Okay, I think that in any interaction with the police officer or any kind, you know, with the traffic officer, they have discretion to in to give a ticket or not. And what feels more important to me is as a white woman, am I not getting a ticket because I'm white and somebody and Anika is getting a ticket because she's brown. That to me, I want us to really pay attention to, but I think I don't know. And I haven't got this fully articulated about what that's as close as I can get right this second. Yeah, let me, Mandy if you would just let me respond to that briefly. So, I'm, no, I, my purpose is not in saying we're trying to move away from the police my purpose isn't saying that we as a community have decided to use a new lens to look at community safety. And so I feel that in order to do that, we need to look at the laws that govern our community with that lens on and to really see where maybe some of what we have here is outdated or could be transitioned into something that honors that new lens. And I don't have any trouble with how you're saying it now but I have trouble with how you said it before, because I don't know if I want to just be nice. And, you know, I don't want to go, Oh, you did it and you did it. I think that anybody who who engages in any kind of community safety person is contacted that person needs discretion so I think we can go too far, but I do agree that we need an equity lens to really look at everything that we're doing in this time. You know so. What I said was moving from a system I think what maybe activated you is that I said moving from a system of penalizing to rehabilitating and in my mind that's not that's harm reduction that's not at all being nice. It's simply I don't, I personally now I'm just injecting my personal beliefs into this don't feel like we need to be penalizing nearly as much as we do, even for small things like this where we can be educating somebody that's knocking on the door who, I mean, and I'm not going to be saying that the. So, yeah, let's have an offline conversation. Yeah, because the point is really that I think that it's important for us now that we're using this new lens as a community we've decided to do that so let's look at the laws that govern the town and just make sure that they're totally agree with that. Okay, and I see Mandy that your hand is up. I agree with both of you. We need a larger conversation because, you know, I think, you know, we, and we also need to hear from the police as much as some people may not want to hear from the police or have us relying on what the police say they do. I think that's an instance where it could be a scam. Well then maybe we want to add extra criminal finds in. But I think most times if someone called and said they don't have a license, someone would show up and say hey you need your license, here's the application can you fill it out like, you know, and do it in the whole way to get compliance but but what I wanted to say is, we need that larger conversation because, for instance, and I don't know where Jennifer might have been thinking about this one. Noise complaints, we've heard a lot of people say, and our town has moved away from writing tickets for noise complaints. But we have heard in GRC with all of the responses that there are residents that really feel we need to start writing more tickets for noise complaints because that nice approach as someone referred of, well just disperse doesn't always work for repeat offenders and everything and that writing some tickets might actually be not necessarily the only thing that works but the potential for certain instances, the best approach. And that's why I think it needs to be a comprehensive discussion and stuff, and might still even if we don't want police as writing a ticket the first response, why we might still want to leave in the option for a criminal ticket or a non criminal ticket, even if that's not the first response we want, because if we take it out completely, there is no enforcement mechanism no matter whether you violate that bylaw or not. If we take out these two criminal enforcements and non criminal disposition, there's no way to tell someone, well you have to have that registration because there's no way to enforce it with a ticket. And so then the bylaw maybe shouldn't even be there. And so those are the conversations I think we need to have. Absolutely. Yes, so I also like Mandy I, I feel what both Michelle and and power saying and we're talking now about fines and who's issuing them and trickling on to, you know, actual interaction between either police and press and whatever. And I think that you know it would do a soul, probably a service as you know we clearly all have questions whether it's this group or a council as a whole. Because I know. I just don't want this to escalate where we're as as pass a nice and people to an issue. You know it starts one way but I think that we have to be mindful of us who are not in law enforcement of how we are determining how Crescent police or interacting I think all the questions are nice but I know myself that if I'm in a situation and I'm threatened. And you know, there's a police or a press officer in between myself and someone who's going to cause me physical harm. If that person is a color, I don't want whomever to be fearful of protecting me, where they're so feel for the stunned and frozen, and I'm hard, or anyone else. So, I think that you know we're in a very I think as I'm not sure if it was Paul I think it may have been Paul. We're in a fragile time and I do not use that as an excuse for not acting I think that you know it would be great if we you know move forward a little faster than we do with things but I think that it is really important for us to be able to look at things for both perspectives because you have great and horrible people of all ages races colors and sizes. I think that we're all aware of where you know people who are more than others discriminated more than others, you know I certainly am, but I do agree that we need a bit of a balance and you know really can't be afraid to dive into. You know asking just tough questions about where police and crest and track and how. And that's about it I think I'm rambling on right now it's just there's something resonating in this conversation that seems like that you know could lead to elephant in the room and I hope that that doesn't happen. Jennifer. Yeah, I was just everything that's been said and also, you know, just you know I don't think when we say what we want to move away from police officers, I mean I think that's the cold country is dealing with that you know the whole question of should show you really have an officer needs to stop you because you switch lanes, you know on the street without signaling, you know that that's. So I think that is a comfort that's happening. Really nationally that we use the police when we, it's really not appropriate. But yeah the question, and this is also for another time but when to call crest and you know I think about that a lot in terms of noise nuisance calls I, you know don't want to use crest as time. So knocking a door and asking that a party disperse is usually the police my experience they come, they'll say disperse. It disperses it's not, you know because it's there, these are at you know that there's usually not a problem. And I worry of using crest is time you know I don't want to impose on them when they have more important things to do, so I don't also know how we. I don't want to impose, I don't think the police should be imposed on either, but you know that's just, because I have heard people say, oh that's great the, you know crest can be involved, you know if there's a house party but I don't know that crests. Maybe crests has more important things to do, I don't know so that's a whole. You know, I see here a lot of people saying they want to involve crests and it's, you know they're 11 whatever officers so I think I wonder if that's also a conversation probably not for here, but you know that, you know what do we want to ask to do so we're not pulling them too thin, I guess that's what I'm saying. Everybody wants Chris. Yeah, and I do think that that's a broader conversation that's going to happen between the Crest Department and Paul and the Council and seeing what they actually are ending up responding to. I don't think that that I think that's different than, you know, reviewing the bylaws but agreed that that is a larger question that's going to be answered in time. And it will be very interesting to see what they do end up responding to, but keeping in mind that the incident that we spent most of our meeting on Monday talking about was a response to a noise complaint. Right, no I know and I was thinking about that a lot because it was a very different response than happens with college students and I don't know if it's because they're not minors. But that is another conversation because I think the response was very different. We can discuss what the reasons might be. Yeah, yeah. Mandy. I'm just going to try and get us back on track on our agenda, which is emotion to let me make it the right one to recommend the Council. Let's wrap up the revisions to general bylaw 3.36 soliciting and declare those revisions clear consistent and actionable. Second. Question though Mandy I just realized so we don't have a note taker. So Athena is going to I believe be taking our minutes by recording. So, just so everyone knows that. That's just a comment. So I second that any further discussion. Okay. All right, so we'll do a roll call vote starting with you Pat. Hi. Jennifer. I. Anika. Hi. Mandy. Hi. And I'm an eye. Okay, so that is a pass. And thank you Mandy. I'm just going to come back to the KP law thing, but I guess that's just something that can happen as a separate piece of this if needed. I haven't had a chance to talk with Paul about that. All right, so let's see here. Let's move to the discharging of firearms since we already spoke about that once and we have some new information that's in the packet. It was an email from an email exchange between me and Chief Livingstone. And maybe we can just. I thought it was in here did everyone see that. Oh, yeah. It says forward general bylaw 3.36 for some reason that's how the mail downloads when you download a mail comment. And I can't open it and that type of file. All right, let me see if I can open it and you just share the bylaw review questions is the one you're looking for Ray bylaw review questions but can you just share your screen with it on it. Yes. Well, this is the message is this what you wanted me to share Mandy the correspondence. I'm not for soliciting. You need the other one from the. Oh, that was yours. Okay. Okay, hang on. Let's see here. Oh, here we go. Okay, sorry about that. All right. I'll share again. Okay. So, when we talked about this last time, we had two questions. The first question related to whether an air gun and whether a paintball gun was considered as an air gun. The second question was with respect to hunting and whether we should add hunting into the second part of the bylaw. And so this is what chief Livingstone had to say about both of those. So it looks like we can remove that first part of the bylaw based on this unless we have. I don't know if that satisfies it was your concern I believe Mandy. You can see what he said about the hunting that we don't need a separate bylaw but that adding hunting into the adding a line about hunting for clarification wouldn't would be okay. And if you just give me a thumbs up once you've had a chance to read this and then I'll ask Mandy to bring up the actual bylaw. Jennifer I see that you're talking but you're muted. I don't have air conditioning on it's a little loud. No, I'm just having trouble reading it because of size. Let me see if I can. And we look it's good. Sorry. It's okay you can't go bigger than that. Oh you know what I can make my screen bigger. Never mind, I just fixed it. I'm sorry. Everybody who may be watching this who's having a hard time. Again, paintball guns do not fall under the classification of air guns, and then he says most if not all hunting guidelines fall under state laws and jurisdictions. Most of the enforcement falls under the environmental police. And that we could add a line to record we could add a line to recreational hunting for clarification in that second part of the bylaw. Everyone good with this if I stop this share. Okay. All right. And then we Mandy if you would bring up the bylaw we can look at it. And again, Nica, Nica, if you have any questions. This was this was one of the bylaws that we decided to review at our last meeting and those were the questions that we had for Chief Livingstone to further clarify what changes we might want to make. I think what we were proposing was to remove one altogether. If the answer about the paintball guns was satisfactory, and then to add recreational hunting as an H under number two. That would allow people who engage in hunting. They wouldn't, it wouldn't, it would be an exemption from the bylaw. Yeah. Mandy please. So, I don't think I can agree with removing one, even if we add recreational hunting to number two. So, B 269 12 V. Prohibits discharge of firearms within 500 feet of a building. So it allows discharge of firearms beyond 500 feet of a building I'm trying to simplify things here. So this bylaw. I believe only restricts or deals with restricting shooting beyond 500 feet of a building. Because 12 V already prohibits within 500 feet of a building. So we're talking about regulating the discharge of firearms outside of that 500 foot range because you can't be inconsistent with the law. You can always regulate in general you can regulate stricter than the law but not less strict. And so, what number what the exceptions do is allow you to actually shoot something outside of that 500 foot barrier. And I can foresee of instances where shotguns would be logical to shoot outside of that 500 foot barrier. I think that if we only add hunting into two might be too restrictive. You know, I, I just think a shotgun is much different than a handgun. Two basically says only in these instances that we've said, can you discharge any firearm in that beyond 500 foot range. That's what to the way I read to is saying. If we eliminate one that means only a to G is the only proper way to discharge the only legal way to discharge a firearm beyond 500 feet of a building in Amherst. And even if we add recreational hunting in. I just don't know whether that is enough. I know there's concern about firearms I know there's always a lot of hatred and fear around firearms. I'm not myself. I've never shot one in my life despite having many opportunities to have done so I've chosen not to. But I think we're by by trying to eliminate one were potentially limiting unduly limiting without knowing exactly what we would be prohibiting. And so I could not vote to eliminate one. Andy, could I just ask you quickly to follow up you said you could see an instance where a shotgun would be used other than hunting to go at a range further than 500 feet is there a particular instance. I can't think of any so I'm just wondering if you have an instance in mind. What the definition of recreational hunting is, if that includes only the animals listed in state law. And there might be people that hunt animals not listed in state law. I am not sure that see to see. It allows a person to go out and target shoot for fun on their own property because of the language range established for these purposes I don't know whether it has to be licensed under the state or not. I have a family in a different state that owns land that has set up a target practice shooting range on their land, but it's not licensed by the state but it's perfectly safe. I don't know whether see I'm not knowledgeable enough about the laws to know or not know whether see would prohibit me from if I had 10 acres of land, establishing my own target range on my property outside of that 500 feet or not. So I think we're trying to do something that might not actually that we don't know enough about. But we haven't had problems with this bylaw so what are we trying to fix if we haven't had problems with the bylaw I guess is one of the things I would say. And we would be potentially fixing quote trying to fix something that we don't know is a problem, and we might be then creating more problems than we've actually fixed. Okay, I'm going to pause us for a second because I notice that Hamela and Jennifer are here. I asked them to come around this time so I would like Jennifer and Anika to make their comments on this but then I would like to pause us and we'll come back to this. Okay, so my sorry Jennifer your hand went down and then up I think you were good go ahead and Nika and then Jennifer. I just had a quick question so the separation between and and you know I'm not a good person I'm not as familiar with this but the separation between shotguns and firearms are they separate I'm just not as surely what what is the difference. When shotgun not be put in firearm I'm just curious. So that is a subset of firearm just like air gun is a subset of firearms so firearm is completely inclusive shotgun is only a subset. It fires shot, it doesn't fire a bullet fire shot. That was my question I'll lower my hand. Yeah, and that's what we were trying to clarify, you know, a little bit with the weather the paint I think actually the paintball gun was a clarification of air guns. But like an example of a shotgun. I mean, yeah, so I think that there are some unanswered questions here I think what you said Mandy about target shooting on your own property like game game recreational shooting does happen, and can happen safely most likely. But so let's pause on this one and we'll come back to it and let's invite our guests if everyone's okay with that now. So I think I have to just go ahead. Morning. Welcome. Good morning. Morning. Thanks so much for joining us. And sorry we're a little bit later than what I had anticipated. So, all right. Pat, thank you so much for sending that amazing information along about the equity lens review process in the, well, how do you pronounce the name of that county by the way. No month. Okay. Um, before we dig into that and just so you know Pat, I had, after our last meeting you sent me a link, and I provided that into the packet. Okay, great. So hopefully people had a chance to look at that and then Pat did send this morning some additional information but I believe most of it was already in that way somewhere. Okay, perfect. Very. It was very early one. So I just quickly give us a framework for this discussion and really also allow or offer to Pamela and Jennifer what this is about. So a little background is that we very early on in our term as a GOL talked about the possibility I think I raised a proposal that we would go through as a committee and create an equity lens review process that we could use to review bylaws to review any sort of proclamations resolutions, anything that comes through GOL. GOL is the committee that is tasked with reviewing any of those documents for clarity consistency and action ability so we're sort of the last stop before something goes to the council for a final vote. And so we agreed that developing such a lens would be helpful and would fall within the purview of our committee. And then at our last meeting, given that Pamela is now on board and working together with Jennifer, that it would be appropriate to invite you all to come to participate in that process with us as much as you're able to. And so before going into any more detail I just wanted to see if Pamela or Jennifer have any questions about what we're trying to do here. No. Okay. Jennifer. Okay. All right. So, let's So, I wrote down a couple notes in preparation for this for this discussion. Really to think about what we're trying to accomplish here so starting with thinking about what are our goals. So what, what are we trying to achieve by developing an equity lens review process. And then who does this effect. So, who and, and what really bodies of work within the council's jurisdiction does this effect, and then who else other than the people in this room should be involved in contributing to the process. And so that's sort of, and I really learned that I think working with Mandy on the rental registration by law really developing goals as a first step. But I don't think we have to, you know, go super deep into that but maybe just hearing from everybody what what the goals are in their mind for developing this and how it would be used. And anybody would be willing to, to jump in on that. And has anything to contribute to that that would be great. Anika. Just for clarity when you're when you would. Sorry, I'm just coming back and back to this and and seeing you know that we are talking about this today but when you're asking, are you asking specifically right now in terms of who. Do we think should be in who else rather do we think should be involved with the process. And how. I'm sorry. Yes, exactly like if there are any other people that we should be engaging with as we develop the process to get their feedback or to get their input. It may just be that this group can develop the process and bring it to the council. And, and that's it but if there is anyone else I was just thinking about who would those people be that answer your question and you go. It did answer my question and so if I'm not going off track if we're talking about this like our bylaws like how could we, who would we really if you think about it not involve that list could be endless you know as it does apply. I would say to anyone and I was actually I'm actually involved in a project that I was just invited to participate it's actually in regards to reimagine black and indigenous history in New England and one of the questions was this you know, because people were, you know, telling stories and one of the, the tribes involved said had mentioned but you know did you, did you ask us, you know, and they eventually, you know, and this, you know, really resonates you, you haven't asked us to be involved like you're talking about us in a sense but you haven't involved, asked us to be part of the process. So my question with this is where is the balance. And do we have the capacity and I could not be understanding this but when I look and I see the volume of the bylaws. There's, there are so many and as I agree they have to be looked at like how do we paste ourselves while being inclusive but also realistic to get through is there a timeline for this or is this ongoing. So I think I have those questions before I could be a little more specific in my opinion. Yeah, I think those are great questions. And I don't think we have. This isn't like an urgent. I mean it is urgent but it's not an urgent matter. It's not even been referred to us so we don't have any sort of timeline from the council. However, we want to work through our own work plan in developing this so it may be that we don't complete it until December and recommend it in December you know it could take us that much time. And then I agree that having the making sure even if it's not in every meeting but that we're having touch points with the people that we need to touch into an engage in this really, it's a critical piece of the work I think. So this is really just like the first conversation that we're having to sort of lay the foundation, and it's not something that necessarily only applies to bylaws I think this would apply really a lens for every committee to be able to use, whether it's a council committee or a town committee to be able to ensure that that equity lenses on when they're doing their work. I see Pamela's hand is raised. Yeah, so I just had a couple of thoughts in response to your question and also some information that I wanted to share so I Jen and I are in the process of putting together a strategic plan for both our department and an assessment tool that would go out to the other departments in town and as part of that assessment tool we will be asking them to do some work I mean we didn't want to overwhelm them with a huge assessment tool that asked like hundreds of questions but we will begin to inquire about the equity of the work that they do as far as the as far as their employees are concerned as well as outcomes for residents. So I think that's just something for you to have in the back of your mind and as we as you work together know that we're also working on that issue. The, the other part in response is that I think that whom you need to call to be at the table with you is going to vary by ordinance and by subject matter like it. It's going to be an exhaustive list, but essentially you're going to have to connect with every department. That's touched by each of the bylaws that you that you plan on reviewing, because they're going to have expertise that you may or may not have about the particularities of why the bylaws was written as it was written and what it aims to do. So I do think that this is going to be an ongoing process. I think you're ambitious to think that you might be able to do it by January but you know I so my suggestion would be maybe to think about prioritizing which bylaws do you think are the most important ones to tackle and tackle. I'm just going to throw out a random number like those 10 or dozen to begin with and then as you're as you start to go through looking at the equity lens you will probably refine your tool a little bit so creating the tool or using the tool so that Pat has suggested will give you a good start and then you'll be able to be more specific as you as you go along but it's certainly part of the work that Jen and I plan to do is to also ask departments to do that, which would require. I mean one of the things that I'll go back and look today is to see if we asked specifically and our assessment tools about bylaws. I think we, I think we asked about departmental policies but we could actually add that as a question to our assessment tool as well. Thank you Pamela. I saw Pat and then Mandy. Yeah, thank you. Pamela. I don't see us just working on bylaws. And, and what I see us are GOL looking at is bylaws, but also looking at committee charges. Outreach. Committee selection, the whole selection process and employment and I'm really glad you and Jen are working on that. So I guess I, I haven't seen this as. Focusing so narrowly on bylaws, but generally, I don't even know if this if this town or this committee has a shared definition of equity and stuff so I think I, and I agree with you Pamela we're not going to be done by January. We're going to do a really good job. And I know from working with Mandy on different things that can take quite a while. And this affects policy across the board. So that's kind of just the beginning of what I have to say. Mandy. Before I ask my question I'd love to hear what Jennifer wanted to add. Jennifer. Thank you. You know, while Pamela and I are working on very parallel things to what you guys are working. So I would say that we should be working together a little bit more on that. Just because like boards and committees something that we will be working on it's included in the strategic plan and a new onboarding process to be developed. So that the committee members who aren't aware of how town works are fully aware of how town works before they become, you know, maybe at their first meeting they learn a little bit more but that whole process. So people aren't coming in so blind because it is a big adjustment coming from the public sector. And then I'm a strong believer that if you guys are going to look at the committee charges that you make sure that you similar to what Pamela was saying about the bylaws is that you include the individuals and the committees in those charges because one thing that doesn't feel inclusive is when one group of people make a chart change to something that other people do and then they're all of these little things that you know the group that made the charge changes because they're not aware of how it actually plays out. Didn't realize and it just calls for a much more inclusive process I think when you include every, you know, the committee that you're looking at reviewing the charge for so very so much about Pamela said. And thank you for that Jennifer and I just I want to make sure that it's clear and then I'll go to you Mandy I just want to make sure that it's clear that we're not. We're in and I'm going to use this because on Monday it was used the word rubric was was was used. I think to describe something a tool, I think is what Pamela said that we can use to look at all of these things through so we're not going to necessarily be doing the review of every charge or every anything. We're just wanting to create a tool that can be used across the board to with equity at the center of it. And it does sound like some of that work is already occurring. In your department so I would really like to hear more about that and whether we're duplicating an effort that is already started, and whether we can be more of a supportive role, or if we have a different role all together. So, Mandy. That was a great segue into my question, because I think, yeah, I was thinking our discussion today starts. How do we go about having an equity lens to anything we do on the council. And that's where I, I know I myself need a lot of help, hopefully from the two of you in your department, but also from others. On what questions do we need to ask, as we're reviewing x y or z whether that's a bylaw whether that's a streetlight policy whether that's a waste hauling policy and change of systems. You know, what questions do we need to ask, are we equipped as a council or subcommittee to ask all of those questions ourselves or are there recommendations for who we always need to bring in to help us with that review or go out and consult during that review we know some of our committees consult with the transportation advisory committee or the DAAC the disability advisory and access access and advisory committee for things that they are experts on that we are not as sort of counselors generalists. So, along with equity I think with Pat said, I think we need a shared definition of what that means, but I wonder if it could also include the climate side or is that also, should we be looking at two separate ones and I don't mean to distract from this one, but I know on our first council, there was a lot of push to always have climate as a climate lens look at everything in a climate lens and, and I would love to know how those two interact even if we have to figure out what a climate lens would require. How would your department advise us in, you know, meeting those two together, because I personally don't have enough knowledge to know whether they will conflict very frequently, or very infrequently. And so I'm hoping your department can help us navigate what questions we need to ask, who do we need to involve when we're asking those questions, is it appropriate for us as counselors to be asking those questions or are there other places that we should be seeking that expertise from and then a report from, like we do with DAAC on anything related to streets they come in and we say, tell us your thoughts on disability access on this and then we get their report. Is that something we should be doing instead of doing that lens review ourselves going out to someone else. Those are some of the, at least initial questions I have about creating this process that is extremely important to do. So thanks. So, do you mind if I go ahead and jump. Please do. Yeah. Yeah. So, I think Jen and I will welcome working with you all on this issues. I mean we are department of two so we can do everything that we would like to do. And, Jen, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the town has been a member of GAIR for two years, and GAIR is the government alliance for racial equity. And they work with towns and municipalities in creating equity assessments and lenses and advice across the country. Most recently they have been supported in their work by the Boston Fed to work with, I believe, like six communities in the eastern part of the state. So I've been working to try to see if we might be able to establish a cohort in the western part of the state to work with GAIR. We already have GAIR membership. I've reached out to the DEI director in the city of Springfield and also in Pittsfield. And I think if we could find one or two more municipalities to work with us then there's a good chance that we might be able to be able to engage them to assist the town in working through all of the steps that we need to do. And I mean the assessment tool that I put together I borrowed heavily from them. I can send you one of the tools that they use for the city of Austin. It's very, very comprehensive and it really envisions, you know, a long term commitment to this work. But in the meantime, while we're, you know, working to sort of see if we can get a GAIR coalition going on in the western part of this state, I've borrowed heavily from their tool to sort of start the process here. I think it's always going to be the case that we're going to need to seek some expertise from outside just simply because we don't have the manpower. Or all of the specialization to do this internally. So hopefully that gives you a little bit of insight. It's really helpful. Yes, Jennifer. Yeah, I was going to say because we, you know, we just don't have the expertise ourselves so it would be, that would be very helpful, both not to, I feel like reinvent the wheel and maybe reinvent the wheel not effectively. Yes, Jennifer. Jennifer. I know when I was listening every time when you said Jennifer I was like, what. So I just kind of wanted to get back to Mindy's point about the climate and so I don't really know necessarily. I don't know that much about it of whether or not they need to be two separate lenses it seems like you should be able to do them as one but I know that climate is an equity issue to right so that they run very hands and hands. So, that's something to think about right there and whether or not you need to separate lenses, because they run so parallel to each other. They're very, very intersectional absolutely. Okay. So, the other point that I want to just make sure to put on the record here now is that I think the larger discussion about creating the equity, I'm sorry Jennifer, are you. Is your hand still up. Gen M. Okay. Is to include the Community Safety and Social Justice Committee in this conversation. I think that if we're talking about a committee that would potentially provide advisory to us. Like I said, Mandy, with the Transportation Committee, for example, there might be a way that they, I don't know what their workload is or what they have and Jennifer you, you would know because you're the staff lay, are you or Pamela are you also the staff lays on to that committee. Okay. All right, so it seems natural that that they might also be a good committee for us to include in this discussion. Oh, Pat, just one second. I'm just going to say one more thing here. Okay. This seems at least from this initial discussion that we're having like something that is going to take some time. It's going to need to include more people. Pamela just mentioned some excellent resources that we might be able to tap into which I'd really like to see if those can come to fruition. I think that that would be really excellent. So just to the committee members. Last time we talked, we talked about the possibility of when we review for clarity consistency and action ability. So, whether we formalize this or not, when we're reviewing things in the meantime while we're developing this process if we can also be looking to make sure that we're reviewing things from an equity standpoint as well. And so I'll leave that there for a second and then Jennifer and then in Nica. I just wanted to say I believe that our care membership can hold about 100 people. So there's lots of room for, you know, folks members of this committee to join our care. That would be great. It's great. And that would happen through Brianna. Awesome. That's great. And also Pat is a the liaison community safety and social justice committee as well. And also disability access and they're definitely people I mean they came up already they need to be included. Because they're they are consistently overlooked no matter how much we try to engage Guilford and other people in listening and hearing what their concerns are. So, yeah. Anika, your hand was up. Sorry, I was just trying to find how do I change my hand. I don't know what happened. So, I'm not sure if this would work here I know that the don't library building committee uses a program that actually Brianna recommended which allows and I'm not sure if this would work with bylaws would allow for the file on the breakdown to be listed and then also has a section room for review and suggestions and I'm not sure for a sake of time when inviting others to participate or even when seeking input from other committees if that's something that could be used because it would allow people you know in their own time especially if you know whether it's departments that you know people are working and they're seeing you know just what stands whether it includes whether it's just seeking information or not. I'm wondering if that is something for time and also to be able to reach a broader range of people and be more convenient would be something to be utilized. Is that something that's readily like available that can be that we could look at. Not in this moment but just. Yeah. Okay, that would be great so maybe for our next meeting we can have that included in the packet so that and any information about gar as well would be really helpful if you could send that would be excellent. That's great. So, how I feel like a little bit more thought needs to go into based on this initial conversation, a workflow and a process that doesn't duplicate efforts that actually where we can work together and have a work plan that gives a specific goals to achieve each time we bring ourselves back together to discuss this. If does anyone else have any other thoughts on that because between now in the next meeting, I could certainly work with Pamela and Jennifer if that's helpful to just sort of establish a timeline for how we might work through a plan for this does that work for everyone. Okay. Yeah, thank you. All right, great. So, thank you Pamela and Jennifer for joining us and oh yeah, please. One of the things and I really want to hear from Jennifer and Pamela. Community conversations, you know, are big broad term, but it seems to me, after experiencing Monday. Again, where people can be right on both sides and wrong on both sides, we can be right but wrong. So it seems to me that when I'm thinking right now community conversations I'm thinking about a full gamut of the BIPOC community, but I'm also thinking of as a lesbian. I, and I was thinking about Evan who was a counselor who's gay. I would love for us to be able to have conversations with lesbian and gay trans people here in Amherst to talk just like we're looking at disability access. So what are some of the other groups that we really need to look at. And how do we do that. But, and I don't know I may be wasting everybody's time right now. But it does seem to me that if this committee could figure out some generalized questions that would that would relate to almost any community we could even divide ourselves up with two of us going to, you know, different meetings and I guess I would love to hear from Pamela and Jen about whether that's a potentially good idea that can be implemented or is it just cookie and almost not possible to implement. So, I, Pamela and Jennifer, take it away. All right, I was going to allow Jen to go first but Jen please feel free to jump in. So, yesterday, Jen and I were having this very same conversation as part of the strategic plan. We included community engagement, which is a large chart part of the charge for the department as a whole. And then there are several different models for how one might engage in, in these types of conversations. So here, among the five colleges we have experts in intergroup dialogue intergroup dialogue is a deep dive into a particular subject matter. We included all of the five colleges Amherst, Hampshire, Smith, Mount Holyoke and UMass, and there are UMass faculty members who created this model for having the conversation. So, that's one that would be a natural sort of easy to tap in because there are already experts in the area to engage or lead conversations for intergroup dialogue. Intergroup dialogue is designed to be generally I would say like a six week commitment so you're committing to having the discussion over the long, over the long period of time. So that's one model. The city of Boston for many, many years engaged in what they called difficult dialogues, which was a series of conversations that took place around the city on specific topics and they were sort of short term like you showed up one night you talked about about a topic and then you know you may not see the group of people for, you know, for weeks or months or you may not engage again they're really sort of designed to be one sort of one time conversations. There's another model that is used in the Commonwealth, primarily by the state colleges and community colleges called NCBI NCBI stands for the National Coalition Building Institute. I'm in Washington DC. And there are some members of the community college community in Western Mass who are trained as NCBI facilitators I'm actually trained as an NCBI facilitator that too is designed to be a one day event, but it's a longer commitment it's generally a half day or a full day of having conversations so where difficult dialogues the Boston model might have been two hours. NCBI we would say would definitely be a half day preferably a full day of engaging people around conversations. There are many other models that we could use as well and we begun to have conversations with the Chamber and the League of Women Voters about partnering around conversations. My sort of vision for the conversations for the community is that what I said to Jennifer yesterday is I think they should be thematic in that there should be topics that we would cover over the course of a longer period of time so naturally race might be one, but there might be others because the goal is to really have people engage in conversations not only about race but about other topics where there might be some disagreement so that you start to be to build community. I was committed to following up on the CSSJC working groups recommendation for having, I believe it's Dr. Love do some racial healing workshops. So that's something he's on vacation this week but that's something that we will follow up with when he's returns. So the answer is, it is not a crazy idea it's something that Jen and I have been discussing and it's a matter of just gearing up you know as I said before I don't want to use as an excuse but we're at office of two and I've just been on the job for about six weeks so it just takes a little bit of time to get these programs in place and to think about how you know we're going to be able to carry them out. Can I enter. If we're going to be working on this as a committee and I believe we are committed to that. How can we help you to in a sense our bodies become available to you to do some of the work that you need to do so we're thinking about how you can help us, but how can we literally help you because you are a department of two. So I think that the call will be, I mean, NCBI has a train the trainer model and some of the other programs do as well, so that we can, you know, multiply our skills by having people engage in some train and trainers models for NCBI or whatever programs that we decide to use. So it's not simply Jen and I who are facilitating the workshops and so that gives you know they're just simply we need to grow our capacity. I would say that my personal belief around facilitation is that it's always done in pairs. Generally, I've always done it with someone who doesn't have the same identity that I bring to the table so there is some diversity among the facilitators. And, and so I think the first step for us is going to be as a department deciding which of the programs program or programs we want to use and then trying to grow our team of facilitators so that we're able to to get started and we may find ourselves officially needing to contract out for consultants to to start while we build capacity but we you know we just haven't have not answered that question yet. And then please please, you know, jump in. Jen Jen Jen. Yeah. I was just going to say to follow up with Pat is that I, not that I think we need another set of acronyms, but you know we do need an LGBTQA plus committee like we just, we don't have one. And lots of the other surrounding communities do and I just think it's something that needs to be incorporated in that we should move forward with creating yet another set of acronyms for our mind. That one would be so long the LGBTQ or and I'm committed to know we'll have to make something easier. I'd love to work with you. Yeah, that sounds like a good because I not to say like this isn't on our agenda but I think we're moving a little bit off of our agenda item. And but I love that idea of creating that and Pat thank you for bringing that up and Jennifer Pamela did you want to respond to that. Okay. Oh, and yes, Jennifer. Yeah, no I just wanted to say I'm in awe of how much you've done in, you know, in the few weeks week this department you know you've been here. So, it's, I just want to express appreciation I know Jennifer has been amazing holding down, you know, being a department of one but you really, you know, you together have just jumped right in and I, you know, so no apologies for being a department of two you have done so much in a few weeks it's amazing. So thank you. There's nothing to do but jump foot feet in first when it comes to the town of Amherst I mean it's like do it or bigger just, you know, go home right. Well you did get hit with a tornado. I guess I want to check in that you're okay. Yeah, I am okay I mean I actually think Monday went better than I expected my expectations were where things would be more difficult than that and we have a meeting coming up with the CSSJ. Next week I think that will be a difficult conversation as well but you know I, I am just trying to do my very best for the town as a whole and you know and that means that sometimes the conversations are going to be very difficult so for me the most important thing is integrity and so I'm just trying to really model that in both my behavior and in my actions and so yeah. We went out for lunch yesterday and and treated ourselves so yeah we're doing okay. Awesome. All right, well thank you again for taking time to be with us today and I will follow up soon so that we can establish a time to talk more about a work plan for the committee. So thank you. I'm just checking we do not have any attendees so no I so I called for public comment okay. If anyone comes late, they missed it. All right, so let's well first just transition a lot quickly here so any other comments about this piece of our agenda before we go back to discharging a fire. I'm it's terrific we had it because they, it's good to know what they're already doing so we know we don't have to start and, you know and that. You know those with greater expertise than we are have already you know that they can really help guide us and we can coordinate with them so. It does seem important though that we continue a conversation, even to amongst ourselves because, you know Michelle years and we need to apply this immediately, what we do, but what is it. And so, you know, if the five of us could come to some agreement about how we might look at the next thing that's submitted to GL or what you know it's. So, I don't know, I see it as a real parallel process and I'm grateful that we have them to rest on to use to learn from to collaborate with. I also think long term. We need to be able to include the Human Rights Commission in this in dialogue with us etc. Like, I just I want to just build a little bit on what you're saying Pat because I feel like, and maybe this is just true and municipal government, but I feel that there's a bit of attention. Sometimes between what the staff is doing or within the purview of the staff to do and what the town council or committees are doing and I heard that they were already I can imagine from their perspective if they're already working on something and then they hear a committee who really in some ways has more power, you know, is working on something how that might feel. And yet don't want to just go to the other extreme of saying, well let's just stop our work and let them do it and we'll support them completely because I think there is a distinction between what we're doing and what they're doing and yet think that there's a bridge for us to work together so if anybody has any more clarity in that yes Anika. I just have a comment and this, you know, doesn't apply to everyone. But I think that, you know, for a lot of people, having a DEI department is new. You know, they're not used to this and then you have some of us where it's commonplace, you know, but that doesn't exempt one from looking at whatever you're doing to an effort. So that wouldn't mean that okay, you know, I mean, and just being aware that there are places where having a DEI department at is a norm. And so there is always maybe going to be some cross references and old and but being mindful of overlaps because overlaps can actually slow things down. I'm not sure if the program and I wish it was on the tip. I just can't remember the name of it, but it's used by the Jones Library and I'm not sure this could be touchy but maybe and I'm not saying this to put more work on the DEI department but perhaps this is something that we have access to. And, you know, committees do so there's maybe a some sort of communication or ongoing communication with like initiatives, you know, so it's clear is this going on is there a way to support this is this something that maybe, you know, we are someone else could take off the hands of a different department and do some work. I think that you know there's that that balance you know some people it's like it's it's it's a brand new thing the I you have a lot of people who have because there hasn't been this department that this work is people are trying to push it in and include it and I, you know, I think this is kind of a point of having a department normalizing that, but also normalizing that you know, I think the way we move towards doing what we're trying to accomplish is not making an option. You know, just looking at things through this lens period, you know, and if there's a question, you know, reach out and ask because we have tools whether it's you know each other DEI department. We're not all going to have the answers but I think that's how we'll move closer to it and not overlap and actually probably see some action happen sooner than later. Yeah, and I, again, I'm coming back to Anika the last meeting I had proposed the possibility of adding equity to our review of clarity consistency and action ability. I'm not getting the sense that there's a lot of support for that right now, but in making it a formalized sort of way of looking at things but even just like as we go back to this firearms bylaw or as we go on to any of the other bylaws that we're I don't see any reason that we should not have a few minutes where we really discuss whether what we're looking at is being seen through an equity lens. So whether or not the group wants to formally request that GOL adds equity as it's like we look at clarity consistency action ability. Why aren't we looking at equity. I don't understand why that's not added. Yes, Pat. I agree with that but I disagree with your saying there isn't support for looking at things with equity in the group, whether or not we change and whether we add that word I just don't like the idea of adding a word that I don't know what we all mean what do we even just the five of us mean I think we're damn close I don't think it would be problematic. But before I add a word I want to I want us to have that discussion and it's to take the firearms thing. How would an equity lens change the discussion that we had or how would it. How would it have impacted the discussion today with firearms. And made that might not be the right question, but I feel like I'm just going to say, I feel like I'm in an incredible amount of pain since Monday. The BIPOC community is no different than other any other community but the splits are painful and there were attacks that were totally unnecessary. And that mean, and I'm really grateful to Chalene for bringing that up for other people to bring that up. And I know that that same kind of rift exists around CR in CRC and TSO and who likes what neighborhood and all this other shit. So, you know, to me when we're looking at equity, I want to know what the five of us mean. And then if we can come to a shared understanding of that word, bringing it forward to council but to say there's not support for it doesn't feel right, Michelle. I feel like you're misunderstanding me a lot today and I, I'm sorry for that. So what I'm saying is, I've asked us to consider adding that as a sort of interim step as we're developing this process formally to ask that that be included in our charge which is a change. And so I that's what I'm saying I'm not hearing a lot of support for I haven't heard anybody say let's yeah let's do that. So not to say I don't think the committee is supporting looking at things through an equity lens at all just to formally change the charge to include that and I agree a shared definition is very important. But I also think that a lot of times it's just about putting the awareness on putting the awareness on when we're looking through the thing. We're looking at the thing, you know, and we, it's not natural. I don't think it's natural to look at things. There's a point about looking at other, you know, there's there's racism there's class that is an issue. There's gender so there are a lot of other things beyond racial equity or inequity that we're wanting to look at and so yes, maybe if I could be more direct, I'm asking for support in adding that as a criteria of our reviews to formally change that in our charge. And if there are steps that we need to take to get there, such as defining equity and like we defined clarity consistency and action ability. I'm fine with doing that I'm just asking for more directly from the committee support in adding that as one of our criteria for review. You have my support. Okay, thank you Jennifer and then Mandy. But I think that does get back to what you know Pat was saying is, I do think we support that but we have to have some kind of definition of what that is and I think if we went to the council and said we wanted to formally we'd have to do that right we'd have to get council approval to add the charge, you know what. Yeah, what we mean because like Pat said that can mean, you know, even if it's only slightly different things I think, I guess. This is what's hard for me that this committee it's very definable when we say clear, you know concise and actionable, but then, you know with an equity lens, again that's what can mean different people so we have to be. We have to at least have some depth, you know, definition of what that means, I think before the council would approve that as part of our official charge. Absolutely yeah so we would bring a recommendation forward that would include changing the charge to add that as one of our criteria with the definition attached. That we would have no shot otherwise. Mandy. I just want to be clear before I make my comments that I support our council, reviewing things under an equity lens just like I support the council reviewing things under a climate lens. I'm concerned about changing our particular charge, as it relates to the clear consistent and actionable language to add to that language and equity lens, unless, and this is this is where it gets complicated. Unless we are allowed to do substantive reviews. Which might become a little more complicated and looking at charges and I say that because we've run into this problem with clarity consistency and particularly action ability where our vote has been. It's not actionable or it's just not consistent. But we don't have the authority under our charge to change the language to make it consistent if that language changes deemed substantive. I mean, I'm struggling with what an equity review would be would we really just say well it's not, it doesn't pass our equity lens review and leave it at that and send it to the council that way. Or would we have to say, here's the changes that need to be done to pass an equity lens review but you know we can't do that. If we talk about that that needs to go back to another committee. And so I guess my biggest concern is not that it get done. It's, what can we do when it gets done because I don't want to send something back to a council for first reading that well it doesn't pass the equity lens review. And so send it back somewhere else, which I guess is what I brought up the last time of, I think that that's why I think we want to create a process because I think the committee is doing the substantive review are better suited to do that review because they're the ones under our charges. And it's really a constraint of charges in my mind that have the ability to accomplish the changes that need to be done, if during that review you say you know this is actually more equitable it's going to affect XYZ in equitably. And so we need to change the substance to make it more equitable, but GOL is not charged with doing that and it. I hesitate to open up that bigger conversation because I know Pat knows from prior years that I, I would love to see GOL be able to do substantive reviews I think we might need a different committee structure though. I just struggle with it. Mika. Go ahead. No, no, no, no, no. I'm just going to say and we may have raised our hands to this rule being sworn in. And where I support it I also feel like none of us would have any business being here if we're not looking through this lens, you know, in general in any committee. And there might be ways that you know that's different there might be ways that you know maybe my definition is slightly different from someone else or maybe it is vastly different. It just it brings up and I'm generally asking the question because I don't know if, you know, maybe is this something that and not to take it away from here, but just a commitment in general that as a counselor we're coming in. To just use regardless where it applies because, you know, we're talking about firearms I, I do not have a lot of experience with firearms but if we're looking at this by the firearms and we're saying like, we need to be fair and impartial we might have reasonable conversations so where I could say you know shotgun what you know who needs it or whatever we need to also look at those as Mandy pointed out that are, you know, in fair range like do. I'm just wondering like how, how do we get past, you know, of some of these things do we just, you know, have to be flexible and some accounts leave it up to Council to approve but I could see it getting sticky especially like for instance with firearms we're talking about, you know, people some of the proclamations that you know more streamlined but I could see it getting a little. That's about it I'm just getting stuck on maybe my mind is just going back to the shotgun. We applied an equity lens to the shot I'm just going to talk to Michelle I'm sorry. Oh no please. And Mandy Joe bringing up what she brought up made us look differently. So I'm. So I think we applied an equity lens when we're talking about street numbers. Originally on bylaw there was concern about the fire department being able to find places. And that was what was driving the look at the thing. But if you read the notes one of the things that says it has to be in numbers, not Roman numerals not, you know, fancy script. So the equity lens there I'm using I think a pretty benign topic. It has to be visible to someone who has site impairments as much as possible. It needs to be in the language of that generally most people speak. So, you know, if I want to I can add 20 I can make 21 and other languages but that to one is going to help the fire department's going to help you find me and putting xx I might confuse everything. So there's an equity lens and, and in that instance, the using numbers. My mathematician is going crazy because there's so many definitions of numbers. But we're saying that it needs to be visible and available to everybody who's walking down the street. And, and so. So I think that we already that that's why I want us to have a conversation what are the places and maybe one way to do it is when we go looking at the next bylaw whatever we start talking about, you know, or Mandy brought that up on her, you know, not even thinking about well about putting the equity lens title on it, but of us really saying those things those aren't substantive changes. When we have people here with proclamations and resolutions they're here. And I will go back to the time when when several counselors came together to do something around child abuse. They were really written poorly. And if I had shut up. We would have maybe passed a resolution, because the changes that I suggested were substantive and not just grammatical. What I said is, do you want to hear this that it's up to you as sponsors it's always up to the people who are sponsoring the resolution or proclamation or the bylaw to decide, but I, I don't want to use something that comes up in a GLL meeting, but if the, if it all starts to become substances, we're off, we're off base. And it really might be that maybe we need more collaboration if TSO comes up with something. If we see necessary, what the five of us think of as a necessary substantive change, then let's go back to the committee, not before we make a recommendation to the council and say hey here's what we're finding what do you think. I don't do that there isn't this sense of, we're working together it's these little silos of people doing things and then we're supposed to somehow or other magically know whether it's clear consistent action will not go on too long. Okay, well, it's 1055. And I think we've had a really great meeting and a lot of really great conversation. I do not think we're going to go back to firearms right now. That leads me to just do a quick review of our next meetings agenda to make sure we're on the same page. So, at the next meeting, let me just see here. Alright, so we did not get to street numbering of houses I think that will be fairly straightforward. Snow and Ice. Guilford replied, I wasn't able to get that into the packet yet, but I will ask Athena to include it in the packet for our next meeting. So, just to briefly answer I think it was Jennifer's question about whether there was a list. There is a list and it was provided in Guilford's email so I'll send that all to you by email and also include it in the packet. Back to discharging of firearms and then we had a referral from the town council with respect to the rubric and the matrix for making decisions on appointing people to committees. Mandy was that your did you bring that forward. So CRC brought forward all three referrals there's three regarding the policy. I don't know whether they have dates in them or not, but my, my, the rubric was originally my request on a Devlon got here, I think is the one that actually brought it to GOL before she was even a counselor, she corrected me on that from Monday night. And, but what I was going to say with respect with respect to them is, I'm not sure any CRC has the changes at this point that I think it needs to conduct a better process in the upcoming vacancies. I'm not going to ask for the waivers, such that I think our timing for those three referrals is not as imminent as it might be in the thought of. Because if we can get these done the next time the council really enters this process is next March. I would personally I think maybe we need to be aiming for like February, not a month on those things given our the rest of GOLs items don't forget about it but look at when do we really need to be done with these. And that's probably February. Okay, so they don't need to be on the agenda for next week is what you're saying. Yeah. The reason the week after I guess that's my point is, yeah, CRC asked for the waivers from the policy it really need for the upcoming group. And so, okay, okay minutes so we can get that done because I really have a heart. Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's a great idea. Okay. So, I moved to adopt the August 3 2022 minutes. Or is there a second. Second, second, can have it. That's got it. Can have it. Okay. Let's do a roll call vote Jennifer. Yes, I can play. Anika. I pat. I, I'm an eye Mandy. I, I okay those pass. All right, so we'll have all of those agenda items that we talked about the bylaws do we, if, if that's going to take us some time and then if we include another discussion about the equity lens I'm going to think about that a little between now and when I have to create the agenda talk to Pamela and Jennifer again. I might throw in another bylaw for review, if it seems like we're not going to have, like we're going to have some extra time. But other than that, if there aren't any other comments or questions or concerns, I'm going to adjourn the meeting at 11am. Thank you very much. Of course. Could you look at the proclamation and whatever calendar. Yes, for the regular ones that occur we're going into September we should probably be doing the October one soon. So, look it up. I will look it up and I was going to talk to you and because there's indigenous peoples. October, I don't know what's been done previously for that but yes, I will. I was actually just spent a good half of the day with one of the network choose yesterday and touched on this so I would like to share some lesson. Okay, why don't we just I'm going to add that for next week so yeah we can talk about that weeks or next week. Okay, next meeting to week. All right, thank you everyone. Have a good night. Thank you.