 Okay, so we are starting our governance committee We have our quorum and so we're gonna start right on time We're waiting for one more member that should show up at some point But this is the meeting of the governance organization legislation committee on September 25th, 2019 Called to order at 1030 a quorum is present and we are recording this the first item of business is Discussion on town council policy on zoning by-law hearings at Zoning by-law hearings so advising on Designating a committee or the whole council for simultaneous hearings under chapter 40a section 5 So in our packet is chapter 40a section 5 so people could read what that says but basically what it says is Is that no zoning ordinance or by-law or amendment there, too Shall be adopted until the planning board in a city or town and the city council or a committee designated or Appointed for the purpose by said council has each held a public hearing there on together or separately At which interested person shall be given an opportunity to be heard that's straight out of chapter MGL chapter 40a section 5 we were the council referred to GOL the question of do we want to designate a committee Or appointed for the purpose by the council and do we want any recommendations? Yeah, so do we recommend designating a committee or not having at the full council or and also do we recommend any? Attempt policy on whether those hearings shall be held together or separately So those are the two questions that are up for our discussion today in order to send back to the council a potential recommendation for adoption Thoughts, and I'm gonna call on Steve first because I'm sure he has thoughts having been a member of the planning board Constant Ryan has no thoughts because he's taking minutes But So I would actually defer to the chair for the moment to get us started If she's willing or we can Go to the next item So I'm willing to get started. I I think on question number two. I outlined two questions Here is our other member Question number two was simultaneous or separate Right simultaneous or separate my recommendation would be simultaneous the better efficiencies we can have on these in terms of publishing and non-publishing and and Town staff work that has to show up to all of these to me the the better And so I think we can each learn from each other if we hold those hearings together Then if we're holding them separately, so that's my my absolute first To update you we are on our first item of business, which is zoning hearings and whether we want to recommend Two questions a separate council committee or the full council to do the city the town council part of the hearing And then whether we want to recommend simultaneous with the zoning Committee the planning board and zoning hearings when they hold them or whether we want to hold a separate hearing separate from when the zoning hearing the zoning side holds it the permit granting authority holds it and Steve wanted to think George had no feelings At this point, and I said at least for question to simultaneous held them together Yes, so for Yeah for for question for question to To me, it's a no-brainer simultaneous It as I think you were saying as I walked in it's more efficient It's us for non-staff time. It's also cheaper for the town We have to publish a legal notice for any of those hearings and so those aren't cheap So either we have to publish legal notices for a town council hearing and a planning board hearing or we can publish The legal notice for a joint hearing so it also I think there's a financial incentive to combine them as well Steve Paper it seems me to make sense to do them at the same time. There are definitely scenarios where Questions are asked that need time to You know sort of percolate like there might be concerns about blank And then those questions could be responded to added if there was a if we did it in order first planning board then town council If there were concerns about a planning board That were addressable than those could be addressed at the Next level which would be the town council But I'm not so sure, you know, I can't think of perfect examples right now But that definitely happened between in the old way where it went from Planning board then to select board. I don't think it can be adjusted because it has to be the same You know the same measure that's before both, but it can be it can help frame the questions But we could always extend a public hearing also, so I think that we should start off always doing them simultaneous George you don't have anything to add Evan so So I think my position is pretty firm on that second question the first question I'm not I'm a little less firm on my my leaning is That Since CRC is the committee charged with making recommendations regarding zoning changes It makes sense That the public that to delegate that the town council's public forum to CRC and for it to be a joint CRC planning board Forum that of course any counselor could attend I think that also I Wouldn't want to have I wouldn't want to force planning board to show up in full on a Monday night But also it's very difficult to get a full council meeting on a night that's not a Monday night Somehow we did it last week, but So so to me I would probably lean towards CRC being in charge of it, but Could be convinced otherwise George or Steve any thoughts on that question? No, Steve you sat on the planning board When we had a town form of government was the planning board the only Body required to have a hearing on on these things. Okay, so that's by state law It's what it looks like that has to have a public hearing and then the legislative Then it goes to the legislative. Yeah, they're town meeting. So the select board I don't remember what the select board's actual role was that well, they simply made a recommendation yes or no But they didn't have to hold the hearing And George you don't have any thoughts. Yeah, you do have yeah, I have a question I have a question about if we do have it referred to CRC And then pointed out that of course counselors can be present but help me here with the rules Can we participate? Directly or are we in the audience and can only speak? During public comment What is our status? What is the status of counselors who are present at this? Suggested CRC meeting who are not actually members of CRC I think if it's not called as a council meeting It would be to participate only as the public is allowed to participate, but there could be a Dual meeting called in case More than just CRC say would show up And so that it becomes a meeting of the council to Given that this is state law, I think we'd need some sort of Consultation if we're looking at recommending CRC be the body of the council that holds these hearings some sort of opinion on Could the council call sort of a special session in case more than CRC shows up so that everyone can participate in the hearing or not If that's a question we want answered we could defer any recommendation We have on this item until we get a response to that George I guess my only thought is that that zoning is something where probably just about every counselor will have thoughts on the matter and But if I understand this process correctly Even if one is simply present at the CRC meeting And can't directly participate though you could speak at public comment if you wish You will obviously have a chance When the full council deals with this so your voice is still will be heard and you can ask questions But I guess the attractiveness of the CRC The planning board would be present at that as well when it's no yes, they would be so if you CRC and planning board So again, that's you know an opportunity for one to engage them directly that would not happen it sounds like When it goes before the full council It would just be the council Deliberating and the planning board would not be present officially at least So if one had questions or wanted to engage in some kind of back and forth It would have to happen at the CRC meeting level unless we made this unless we didn't refer it to CRC, but simply had it as a Council meeting with the planning board together in other words everyone together Yeah, so I'm just wondering how Counselors voices can be heard on these matters when the planning board is actually present to Engage and discuss and at the moment it sounds like it would only be At the CRC planning board meeting Evan So, I mean, I think I think I don't want to overthink this too much. I think it's it's possible to say the authority to Authority or responsibility to hold the public hearing lies and CRC they coordinate with planning board to have a joint hearing But just as our president has done on multiple occasions It could be also called as a full council meeting just in case So we just had this with JC that mean the joint meeting that was a joint JCPC finance committee meeting So as a council committee and JCPC But it was also called as a full council committee meeting so that those of us who showed up could also participate We've done this a few times Why I there are several reasons I'd rather have it lie with CRC one is just that we have We have put in CR in CRC charge zoning as a sort of the matter that they Deal with and so it seems to make sense But the other thing is that and please correct me if I'm wrong if we if we want it to be Let's say we want we don't want to change We don't want to make planning board have a separate night for their meeting So we want it to be part of planning boards existing meeting Then For it to be also the town council if it was a full town council thing and we didn't want to have On a town council night We would need to ensure that we have a quorum of the council present and I don't You know, I'm thinking in terms of the What we just did The repeal and replace of the zoning bylaws that was pretty minor. It was non-controversial Maybe if that hadn't been on a council night, we wouldn't have had a quorum of the count seven counselors present for that I think it just it makes it a little bit easier if it's just CRC because we just need a quorum of CRC present In order to say that we held the public hearing And as as you noted, that's not the only time the council would have opportunities to ask questions I mean it would have to be read two times in front of the council I assume at a minimum the members of the zoning subcommittee would be present at those council meetings But I think In many ways the this is a new thing that we have to deal with as Steve mentioned We didn't we used to just have to have the planning board hearings. This is a new thing And I think this is just a way of making it easier and more efficient in some ways so we can Check that box the hearing in many ways is for the public and less so For us as counselors and so I that's where I'm leaning more towards CRC, but I think your points are also well taken Do you have any thoughts Steve? Is this something we think we can get to a vote today on? Um for a recommendation to the council I'm here. I'm seeing people nodding their heads. So I guess I'm looking for a motion It sounds like that motion might be Um I didn't hear what you said. Oh pat could not make it today. She'd backed the backs and she just couldn't stay um a motion to recommend I write as I think of these That the council Designate The CRC committee, I guess see the second C is committee What is it? Designate the CRC As the committee Should we just quote? I mean it's and the city council or a committee designated to Designated for the purpose by said council um, I guess Be that the council designate the CRC committee as the committee To hold public hearings under chapter 40a section 5 So it's under mgl chapter 40a section 5 um 40a 40a And Further So that's one and then further recommend That CRC attempt To hold those hearings Together with the planning board Could you explain attempt? Got a better word That that CRC hold those hearings. Okay, that's fine. That CRC hold those hearings together With the planning board So i'll read that again So it's a motion to recommend that the council designate the CRC The CRC as the committee to hold public hearings under mgl chapter 40a section 5 Further to recommend that CRC hold those hearings together with the planning board I guess i'll make that motion George seconds Is there any discussion? All those in favor It is four zero with one absent That moves us on we're almost on time here to a discussion and of and vote on proposed Resolution supporting an act establishing medicare for all in massachusetts um that can be found in the packet So this is a i'm going to give a little bit of History right here. I am not sure when this is coming before the council At all. I do not know if this is the actual last wording But it was requested that we Make a recommendation now so that it can be heard by us before it comes to the council since the sponsors are not sure Exactly when They're they're going to bring it and so that it would at least have some sort of hearing from us So There is a document in Your folder That shows it it may change Are there any thoughts on clarity consistency and action ability? On this one So from a while ago when this was on the agenda, I just pulled up some of my email Councillor steinberg had emailed me with some questions Some of which are not necessarily in our purview, but i'm going to read them. It's an old email. So I don't know if any of them do Concerns include that the resolution places councillors in the middle of a device of democratic politics That if it's about possible state legislation, it could ask us to support something for emotional reasons without considering costs and consequences Um It could have bad consequences for amherst since it could suck up taxes and affect the state's ability to provide local aid State taxes cannot be increased without a constitutional amendment on the flat tax and if it supports legislation Um, councillor steinberg, we want to hear from the mma first So I think this is part of why we have not seen it in front of the council and why it's been delayed because I think the supporters That want us to adopt it are getting some of those cost estimates, um, but I thought I would bring them up as things I had heard For that and then I I had one question related to and I know I emailed pat about this The last Therefore or whereas the now therefore be it resolved doesn't require actually sending the resolution off to anyone And so I had sent pat a while ago language that I recommended She's been the one that is actually corresponding with the sponsors um, and I've actually talked to one of the sponsors in the past and and Suggested it to them that this language include the typical language I think the roe act had it that was past it at the council And others when we're dealing with state laws that it gets sent the resolution gets sent off to The sponsors of the house and senate bills are rep and senator the governor All of that because we can pass it. But if we don't do anything with it, no one knows And so I would recommend anything related to this as a gol for consistency purposes insert that that sort of Line about and upon passage Send the clerk of the council sends a copy too And then the list the appropriate list Any other thoughts george? since the sponsors are not here And there seem to be issues a number of issues with this um, I wonder if we can just postpone this for another day and deal with it when We have people present who can answer questions we might have And it seems like we're also looking for more information And the sponsors are looking for more information So my thought is um, we probably shouldn't to deal with this until we feel like they're actually ready to deal with it We shouldn't spend our time until they have their act together and they're Either communicated to us that that this is the final version or they're actually present for us to actually talk to them about it Everyone agree with that? I can get in touch with the sponsors Evan given our Impending rule change That this committee voted on um Well, we are now using the phrase the sponsors Uh or the sponsor Is that in reference to the counselor sponsor which in this case? I believe is pat or is that in reference to the people that pat was working with? So I think it would be both and we should work on clarifying our language. Um I think given our recommended rule change We would go to the counselor sponsor as joel and say hey, this is coming up at this meeting Get who you want here here Um Or you come and all We can you know or proponents, I guess we could use as the non counselor sponsor We could say proponents and maybe be in touch with them To and I can get in touch with the proponents To to chat with them and loop pat in as to when they think this is going to come So that we can have the final draft I see a nod from steve evan uh, george To the rest of you agree that that just as a matter of course If it's clear that what's being Presented to us is simply not ready that we just wouldn't even put it on the agenda It's why it hadn't been on but it was requested right it was requested by someone By the president to be put on so it would be have heard because she's not sure when they want to hear it and so proactively To make sure gl had seen it without any more delay But yeah, so I I can go back to the proponents and pat and see if we can we do have a meeting next One more meeting before a council meeting Um, so I can we we might be able to still get them here on the 2nd of october Yeah, george Our time is precious And it's increasingly under pressure and it doesn't seem like we should be um, uh, you know Somehow what at the mercy of other people's uh schedules or agendas Um And as a courtesy I would seem when you finally do want us to act on something That you would have it in the form you want it to be in And I understand how difficult that can be and I have all sympathy for that But I think we as a body should just say look Please don't bring us something until you feel it's ready and until it's ready. We're not going to Talk about it or discuss it. Um, no matter what anybody else thinks Is that too draconian? But I just I'm trying to save our time and so that normally when no matter where there's the president anybody else You know the policy would be that we're not looking at something until The people who are bringing it forward say it's ready and at that point we'll be happy to to look at it and discuss it but um And I'm not thinking of this in particular. I'm applying this to any Anything that comes before us It needs to be Ready and if it's not Come back some other time I think it's in accordance with what council expressed at the retreat. So I will we will end this discussion We'll move on and I'll Connect with the correct people. So the official election is we're going to postpone. We're just going to postpone Yeah, Evan so just it from a process perspective. I think probably This is unrelated to what george said It makes if if we're setting The entry point to the council as a counselor sponsor It seems like that counselor sponsored then also becomes the communication intermediary So while you might have the contact information for the people we're now calling the proponents To me it makes the most sense to go to pat as the counselor sponsor and say talk to the proponents But it feels a little complicated if you're also talking to the proponents So it seems like The counselor sponsor agrees to be the person who brings it to the council shepherds it through the council and also Has the line of communication to the proponents Um So I I guess I would probably encourage you to talk to pat and not reach out to the people who she's working with And let her do that because she's taken on that responsibility by becoming the sponsor will do So we will move on we are now moving on to continue discussion and possible vote on a town council FAQ for the public relating to resolutions, proclamations, commemorations and citations and I believe george provided us a document for this This is The one titled resolutions proclamations citations and commemorations. I think With changes george you want to talk about the changes? So everyone has the document in front of them and um The first change that uh, I made was to insert town council In all four of the definitions just for consistency's sake and people should see if that sounds okay So I thought the point was well made last time that I mean these were created as just definitions sort of in out there in space And this is really a specific document for what the town council is doing So um, we inserted it for two and I felt we should probably insert it for all So that was the first change um In item number two, how do I get something before the council? Actually, I don't think there were any changes that I recall at least correctly if i'm missing something, but I think that was Left as is um Item number three I was urged to try or it was suggested we try and get clear language as to um, what gl wants sponsors to do And so I just took the draconian course of just striking That sentence basically and just simply saying go well strongly urges sponsors to be present when the committee conducts this formal review But I didn't I took out the language, you know saying well this could delay blah blah blah I don't know if that meets the concerns of others but I felt that um I felt consensus was we really do want sponsors to be present, but they don't have to be present um, and It seemed not appropriate to make threats or sort of you know suggest that well if you're not here, we're going to punish you um If that language captures it fine, but that was this second major change And then the final thing that I did is I recall simply insert or tried to insert a hyperlink to frequently ask questions and I did We'll find out when we accept all the changes So my one question is given our just Happened conversation about wording on proponents sponsors all of that should in number three A gl strongly encourages our urges proponents I mean that that's all supporters almost we I'd like to word sponsor only because a proponent could be anybody right, you know I could be a proponent of this Medicaid for all meaning that I think it's a great idea personally But I'm not a sponsor of it So that's the only concern I have with that language I'd like it to be clear from this to anyone reading it that we're talking to Those that are actually bringing this forward And that we would really like them to be present and We're assuming that the counselor who's sponsoring it or counselors Would be doing the same thing that they would be urging the sponsors to be present And I agree there is this sort of ambiguity now between the council sponsor or sponsors And the people actually bring it forward and in some cases they could be the same same people So I don't know but proponent I'm a little that seems a little too broad Steve How about petitioner because a sponsor is I think defined in two As a counselor, but I would think and then we have a whole bunch of other Food petition resident petition So I think petitioner might be the right word petitioner petitioner and or sponsor Evan You had your hand up before I go on to you, so I I I think I like Again, I understand Georgia's problem with word proponent Um I like I like words to mean something And so if we're going to use the word sponsor It should have a singular meaning that's understood within the context of this And so we're calling the counselor sponsors, so I'd be wary of calling the Residents who bring it to a counselor also sponsors um, so perhaps steve's language is Best I mean it doesn't I mean Yeah, I think I think it's it's probably the best option Yeah, are we in agreement to change the word sponsors to petitioners in number three? So it would read the last sentence would read gl strongly urges Petitioners to be present when the committee conducts its formal review The the question becomes as as we saw with my error on the last one We have to get a good system in place for Regularly notifying and figuring out how to notify when we're going to put it on our agenda and so that that becomes an additional burden on us, but But it's It should be a good practice for us to get into the habit of making sure We reach out to someone and in the past we haven't even known who to reach out to so the fact that there will be a Counselor sponsor will hopefully make it easier because it will be an email from the chair to the counselor sponsor saying Hey, we're putting it on our agenda Check in and see who wants to be present, you know, that makes it easier. We'll know who to contact And I note the word petition does appear earlier in the document because the second way you can get something before us Is a group petition Because it could possibly be the case that no counselor wants to sponsor something But 150 voters disagree and then obviously we would be dealing with the petitioners directly Since there would be no Steve That's the proposal that will be brought to the council. Yeah, so we could say councilor sponsor or petitioners Yeah, that's that's I would say also minor thing is uh Under two I think that second charter reference needs to specify 8.2 a B You know the second one a resident is a yeah Yes No, it is referring to the resident petition. So so that is 8 8.2 a yeah, so that's another change I think it's nicer to I think I think they need to be distinguished because we're saying if you submit the group petition the council has to act You can and then if you can't if you can't get 100 or you don't want to get 150 people And you can't find a council you can do a resident petition but no guarantees Right. Oh, and and I did I think I did make the change that it says purely at discretion of the council president and we should note that because that either may be that may be Not the language you want or it may actually not be correct but My understanding is that a resident petition of the nature that's mentioned here Is strictly up to the council president I mean she controls the agenda, so I would I think that's accurate. Thanks for pointing that one out though. Okay. I should have caught it first But yeah, I made that change. I believe as well Any other changes Just asking if you are noting these in the document or should I have these in a minute? I have noted them by hand in this Ouch, okay, right. Well by Right Because I didn't have my mouse out, so I've got a document that is noting both of those changes For doing later And the next if we've got no other recommended changes. This is an FAQ Right now it is Just an FAQ it's not from who We can adopt it. Do we believe this needs to be forwarded on to the town council as a whole? Oh Evan George was going through his changes. I don't think we ever actually got to five and six You just went through up to four. Oh I'm sorry. I don't think there were any changes here. I think it's just a matter of discussion. I believe Okay, don't recall changes Discussion Evan. I have opinions. Um Five I'm a little wary about Saying usually it would be taken up at the next council meeting that I think that's an expectation that we might not always be able to Do I like the idea of just saying it's the discretion of the town council president? Yep so So just a strike Everything up to meeting to but And just say agendas are set by the president the council and the president may use their discretion in placing items on the agenda Is that fair to start with the the sentence with agendas agendas, yeah Everyone okay with that? Okay So I've I've still got the recommendation for action as a concern Um because we don't recommend action We for these things these measures we've been just declarations Well, it's not even a recommendation. It's just a declaring clear consistent actionable or not so Where do you see the So for the measure to the full council along with its declaration Period We don't recommend though We declare something clear consistent and actionable or we declare it not clear but consistent It's a declaration that we make on these items Along with Its vote well, you could just restate declaration that that it is clear consistent in action You just state that again We could just say well for the measure to the full council after its review period That's true I actually like steve's wording just along with its report because the report will contain that declaration and then discussion I agree declaration sounds strange. We've become very comfortable with using it, but to the public No, it would be because it'll be a public term, but yeah, everything's in the report. So I don't think the public cares about our report either but What they want to know is that um after the formal review to well report the measure to the full council Along with its report period Agendas are set by the president fine. Okay. Okay Does that work for number five now So six Okay As you can see I did not change this though. I heard the concerns and I think they're legitimate And uh, so I you know I still think but I can easily argue out of it that We should say something to the effect That we're the town council of amherst and we're dealing with matters that In some very broad sense bear On town affairs town matters are interest to its residents It is a very broad I don't maybe test is in the right word but a criterion. Maybe I don't know um And again, it's making it somewhat. Maybe the threat could be removed but um That was the thinking behind it and one thought I thought last time was if we just take it out Steve yeah, so I would We can reject a measure that has very direct bearing on the town of amherst. So this in a way this is making a Sort of an assumption that we would reject it because it doesn't I mean that would be a reason for but we can reject Yeah I would tend to remove that second sentence and I'd also tend to remove everything after The next sentence after town council So they town council can vote anyway, they want whether or not they've seen the light of the Well, in other words the town council could act contrary to It sort of makes it sound like the town council the gol recommendation, which isn't a recommendation Will have shine a flashlight on the I Should we just delete it completely George Well, I think that's one solution maybe the simple And and I think the question broadly speaking is Do you think this is a question that people might have that we could offer some kind of Light shed some light on and the answer may be Yes, they might have this question, but we can't shed much light on it or it might be it really isn't a free Is it a frequently asked? Is this a question people might ask, you know so This is about what we do And Steve's point is of course, we don't approve or vote this up and down We just make a declaration So you could argue that it doesn't belong here because this is about us our committee That's not part of the process for getting it in front of the council And so you could argue it's not appropriate as a fact Evan So I'm struggling with this one So I'm reminded of why we're even Doing all of this and I think it started because a particular counselor Wanted to ensure that there was some type of policy in place for resolutions proclamations commemorations and citations To prevent ones that seem sort of absurd or inappropriate for us to act on From actually wasting council time And so to some extent To ignore the fact that that's where this all started in the first place Seems sort of like missing Part of why we're doing this Then again, I think we addressed that through the requirement of a counselor sponsor, right and so The issue is addressed even if not explicitly stated and so Probably doesn't need to be there If we So I don't want to keep six But I do kind of like the overall sentiment If we were to keep it and I think I'd be fine deleting it, but if we were to keep it I would probably want to try to shift it from the negative to the positive And so instead of doing from why might the town council not act on it Something along the lines of what types of resolutions Come I wish for whatever are the town council likely to take up and just say something like that the council encourages them To have some clear direct bearing on the town of amherst So that there's some guidance of what we're looking for But without necessarily the punitive aspect, I do I will say I to me this document isn't just about go well Because it has definitions of what they even are and question Two is really about how to get it in front of the council. So I don't think we're limiting this to Well, that was going to be what what motion are we Doing is and I'll come back to that would us taking the first sentence of number six Maybe rewording it, but it is assumed that such measures have some direct bearing on the town of amherst and or its residents and plopping it under number one after the four definitions Would that work? So you have after commemoration, then you have it is assumed these measures Or it is encouraged highly the town council urges Petitioners or I don't know what would do but that these measures have some direct bearing on the town of amherst and or its residents Or it is urged the The knot and then that would allow us to get rid of six but also put that in there as part of sort of definitions of here's what they are and We encourage these measures to we could just say we encourage these measures to have some direct bearing on the town of amherst and or its residents Right under the definitions I guess I'm a little nervous about putting that up top If it goes in at all I prefer that it go a little bit farther down And I'm still trying to look whether it belongs here or not We're not the gatekeepers. No, and I don't want to give that impression and so Putting it up top might suggest to someone looking at this somewhat cursively that somehow our job is to make sure that things that Don't meet some tests don't get past us and we really can't do that One attempt is we said is to have a sponsor from the council and hopefully that will make this Deal with that issue to some degree But I don't want to give people the impression in the way we phrase this or present it That somehow our job is to You know keep certain things out So I'm a little nervous about putting it up top And also maybe beginning to think maybe it just doesn't belong So I hear Evan's point that this is a document that certainly is more than just gol And this is a question that it seems to me someone might readily ask Maybe putting it in a more positive way. Well, you know What what are the expectations of the council with these sorts of things and the expectation is That they would have some direct bearing in the town and or its residents So phrasing six in a positive way Might be an argument for keeping it. Um, I prefer to keep it at the bottom Rather than moving it up top Where are we on consensus seven? So I I'm just here to disagree with George today, I guess Um, so The more we're talking about this the more actually like the idea of keeping the sentiment again Perhaps reframing it and the positive of what we're looking for versus what we're not going to act on I actually kind of like the idea of putting it up on top because I think there's a flow Where it's like if you're a person and you're sitting there and you're saying I want to I want to make a statement about nuclear war And then you start at one and you say well So what is my statement even going to look what is it a resolution is a proclamation and one answers that and then the next thing would be Okay, so is this resolution you have relevant? Is it something that we would actually look for and if the answer is yes, then the second question they ask is okay so how do I bring this to the council and then okay, well, when do I bring it to the council and then Um, you know, then it says it goes to gl well Well, what's you all going to do with it and then well what happens afterwards? And so there's a process There whereas to say at the very essentially this document walks them through the entire process of What it is to how it gets in front of the council to what the council does And then six to have it at the end to just say what are we even looking for feels like That's we've already gone through all the steps right and so to some extent I know you don't want to seem make it seem like a gatekeeper situation But I actually kind of think if if your if your thing is about, um, you know the An event happening in California in California You actually just shouldn't even read past one because probably shouldn't bring it forth anyway so don't even worry about two through six because Chances are it's not relevant anyway So are we ready to send this maybe back for another revisioning of number six before instead of trying to Word word shop it here Can we send it back? I can get you all the changes we did today So we've got a clean document and only looking at those changes then next next meeting Which is next week. Yes Do we think we can do that? Yeah, I I can work on a word shopping if george if you don't have time or evan or evan Does evan have time in a week? Well for six, I think that the word number six Who's got more positive desires on that that number? And it can be just getting me the changes and then I can put it into the document So it'd be something to the fact that you know in Approving or whatever resolutions proclamations citations and our commemorations What does the council what is the council looking for or no, that's not right Um Anyway, I guess there's just going to be some thinking I maybe any suggestions people can give me I'd be willing to try okay word word smith it. I think everybody has a lot on their plate I'd be willing to take it on but I want to make sure that I Capture the true spirit of six So evan and I maybe can also touch base at some point So what we're going to do is assign it to george To come back with a revision six more anyone who has suggestions Feel free to send to george. He has all ability to reject them and come up with his own options But but it's going to be to george I will send george the new what we've discussed today so that you've got a clean version So that the only track changes we'll be looking at is related to number six Sound good And we will put it back on the agenda for next week Um, the next two items are related. They are revisions to The public waste policy to advise on flag raisings and commemorative flags and then a potential resolution because we were talking about Restarting the commemorative flag flying With a clear town council adopted resolution george. I think you were assigned to these two items Did you have time to get to them in the last week? Okay? I'm sorry Do you think you'll have time For agenda setting by next week and where do we think our priorities are this as a Okay, um Let me let me talk to you afterward george And see what we can do about this evan So we have the the portery can flag up right now. Yes But after this February it's black history month, right And the commemorative flag policy itself is just sort of ongoing. We were just thinking of a brand new reset on that This this it can wait a couple weeks time. I think Do do people feel that seeing george's face when you said that? Yeah Well, no, but it just I don't have a template where I'm working from and what we have at the moment is a mix of history anecdote question And and some some supposed facts that I'm not completely confident of but probably are right And so it's not We don't want to believe her today, but in my own mind, it's just not clear what form this is going to take Do do we want a history lesson in addition to? You know Yeah, so Mandy and I and we'll let me talk to george. I have given some upcoming announcements Maybe I can take this this section back on I did draft the original public ways policy So maybe I can take these two on over the next couple months to come up with something And take some stuff off your plate. You've been doing a lot george Well, I don't mind doing it. I think so let's talk. Yeah, and Because I don't mind taking this on but I just need some kind of Model template or something to look at that or better Guidance or clear guidance from the committee as to what they want. Do they want some history in here? Do they want my little description of the controversy over 9 11? Is that just is that not appropriate? Because what what exists in the record is a kind of mishmash of You know town manager pronouncements select board meeting notes and lists of dates and You know flags and so on it's it's a mishmash And maybe that's what the policy will look like. It'll be all those things jumbled together, but at least they'll be in one place So I could just start with that I could have three pieces to it And then we could look at it as a committee. I don't mind doing it Steve were you Itching to say okay. I thought I heard it was all hand for me. Steve We'll we'll chat george And come up with something but evan makes a great point We're looking more like november-december to get this out to the council then So it's not as pressing. Yeah, yeah, so I mean what we could I'm wondering if we could set like a time in our minds They may be by the november 20th GL meeting and so that gives george a couple months to wrap his head around and george can reach out to whoever He wants to on this committee or off this committee independently. So we're not creating a sub Yes, um to to to put this together. Is that do you think that's not time george? That's fine. Okay. That's a good suggestion That brings us to Um Number seven is work groups and ad hoc committees. I am I'm looking at the time And then we've got a committee charge pat wanted to reopen that. She's not here. So we're not going to Probably I'm just going to postpone that today. Steve is leaving at noon. So um We'll see what we get to but um, let's do work groups and ad hoc committees We have This is item seven. Um, this is What What is in front of us is what was proposed to the council the council has had a first reading on it um and Since then We have done a whole bunch of stuff. Um And so we've got a document that has what we proposed to the council that council Had a first reading. I'm going to pull up my notes from that first reading Um and that first reading was the 26th, I believe Work groups so during that first reading The discussion was very similar to the discussion. I think we've had in this committee For months. Um Do we need them can we deal with them without hot committees? Um, it's important to have non counselors on these committees The current proposal is not compliant with the charter because it has someone other than the president appointing the committees, um one person mentioned the Going back to sponsors to fix something that a Council committee or a council doesn't like is not necessarily as productive as asking new people in to talk about it Um, which was the so instead of referring back to an original Person who brought say something to us that it would be better to create a new group to discuss it. Um There's a higher chance of a more diverse membership if a chair can pick who it is again That goes back to attorney opinion Um With the group having a finite task it makes a difference versus I guess an ad hoc committee Um Someone's at about appointments since it's short term. It's okay not to open it up to the public as a whole Um There was a uncomfortability with designating specific people by name Um in any particular work group motion And so That kind of summarizes what I have on here As the discussion that happened there And so it is back with us We have some changes we should make to make it comply with the charter But I think we also have an opportunity to potentially open this up for A new proposal And we've seen since the time this went to the council a lot of the concerns that we've discussed for months. We've now created two at well, we've created one and amended another ad hoc committee sort of They aren't named work groups because we don't have work groups, but the way they were created is in The spirit of work groups of not having formal charges not having You know GL review to have to go through it and all of that And so I guess the question i'm bringing back here to this committee is before We bring Our second set of changes to a second reading on work groups and ad hoc committees to the council Do we want to re-evaluate our proposal for actual work groups? And perhaps consolidate those two back into one based on all the conversations we've had but also Hell the council seems to be acting as it Creates ad hoc committees anyone care to George is on the verge well I was a proponent for work groups for many of the reasons that people have presented But there was a strong case made by others on this body and perhaps also on the council that That we don't need to create new entities and Mandy's just pointed out that that we seem to be doing fine with just ad hoc committees Or maybe that's not fair. She just points out that we have created ad hoc committees. She's not said necessarily we're doing fine But the point being that that when we face this challenge, we just created ad hoc committees and some have been feeling like that's you know too cumbersome or too. I don't know what but I guess we're back to the question, you know, if we have a mechanism for achieving Flexibility And being able to get People other than counselors on a body And maybe that's the issue with ad hoc committees basically that they must be they can only be council members. Is that correct? well We modified the rule And proposed a change that way, but it wasn't originally proposed that way That was what we as a gol committee had deemed the difference between ad hoc committees and work groups. There's no Charter requirement that that be the case so that can certainly be changed So I guess what I'm asking and People don't have to respond but but for those who felt that in a sense we already have enough We have the mechanisms we need. We don't need to create another mechanism another body whatever Do they still feel that way and If so, maybe we can try to craft something along those lines Evan I think my position has been clear For a while now That we didn't need to create an entirely new category of committee to achieve What I think were some admirable goals behind the intent of work groups I lost that battle in this committee And was ready to resign myself to accepting work groups having lost And then something interesting happened is we did exactly what I said we could do which was create an ad hoc committee Via motion without a charge that included members of the public Which was both frustrating and vindicating at the same time and so given that we have Just created an ad hoc committee without a charge That follows all of the same criteria that was laid out in the recommended work group language And that includes members of the public Given that that ad hoc committee is already operating I don't understand why now we have to go back and say we need a separate category And that that was just some weird thing that we did one time because we didn't have The the work groups in place if that's working then i'm not quite sure why we need to create this separate thing I still have issue with ad hoc council committee rules 10.4 saying That council charges to establish ad hoc committee shall specify the purpose of membership Because with the exception of ad hoc rules or procedure We have never had charges for ad hoc committees And there was an argument before that's because they were created before we had these rules and yet just at our last meeting We sort of reconstituted the ad hoc goals committee Without a charge Just via motion and so as far as i'm concerned what even though i voted for it What we did at monday night's meeting was In direct conflict with our rules because we created a new we reconstituted an ad hoc committee without a charge and so I i'm not i i'm not buying the argument that we need this entirely separate rule Given that we have just done What we want this rule to accomplish without having this rule in place And so what I would like to do Is take the current language we have for 10.5 Strike the word work group everywhere we see it Replace it with ad hoc committee And then delete our rule 10.4 for ad hoc committees um Because that's what we've been doing for ad hoc committees So i'm going to take my privilege here. I I think that's that's sort of the Place i'm at now i'm not i'm i think 10.5 might need a little bit of work Um, I don't think it's as simple as just find and replace and striking. Um Things like right now work groups require members of outside outside, you know, so I I but I think i am in the point of supporting And an ad hoc committee Rule that looks more like the work group rule that we proposed than the ad hoc committee rule that is currently in the rules um That that strikes the need for charges, but but says what the motion should show And should have how many members should be you know that that takes all of that and sort of allows it to be done by Motion so I think I support sort of a combining of the two into one calling a mad hoc committees and coming back with that proposal um The the parliamentarian portion of me says we didn't actually violate the rules because we moved to amend a Option previously adopted and it was adopted not in violation of the rules um It required us it allowed us not to have to suspend the rules to make that motion Multiple motions, but no it it is it is recognizing that this council seems very Okay with creating ad hoc committees that don't have charges And our rules should reflect what we're doing so we don't have to worry about whether we need to vote to suspend the rules on a regular basis Um, so that that's where I am I I think we should assign someone to do that and bring something back if that's where this committee is at So we're not doing it at the meeting where we're then looking at something next week actual language Moving ourselves forward like that Does that If that's where people are now, I don't want to send someone off to do that if It's not really supported by this committee because I don't relish telling people to do work that then it's going to come back and not not have a chance of Being passed at the committee. So it would be good to know whether that's that sort of Combining 10 4 and 10 5 ad hoc council committees and work groups into one rule Is now the goal of this committee? I'm seeing a nod from steve george I guess it the devil's in the details. Um what I'm hearing. I'm sympathetic to No formal charge. No gl review Do we also want to have some kind of time limit? We want to say or is that again that that gets too specific Um, we don't want these bodies to go on forever and ever So work groups had a time limit in their rules so we could keep that work that in. Yeah So you basically as you said you're trying to take what you felt were um The sort of good things about work groups that people liked generally speaking and craft or or graft that language into um the ad hoc committee rule and then We would just as evan suggested get rid of the work group role I I can that I can I'd certainly be willing to look at it and hopefully support it 100 percent Anyone want to take that rewriting on? Evan I would be more than happy So can I ask one question? So, uh, which is a feeling of the committee before I go out and do this. Um One of the differences that hasn't been I think as discussed And I would be curious to know sort of the feeling of this committee. Um is that ad hoc council committees The current rule says the council by which I interpret to be the full council is the body that creates ad hoc committees Uh work groups. We said the town council or town council committee Um, and so we we open the door to committees creating work groups Um Would we also be opening the door to a council committee creating an ad hoc committee that that's That's the one piece of this that I'm not quite I have a very clear vision for everything else and that's the one piece of it that I'm not quite clear on Georgia We're imagining a committee. I'm thinking of like crc, but it could be any committee that wants to get working on something but If we don't craft the language correctly They can't until it goes before the full body And the full body decides that yes, they want that committee to have a ad hoc committee Am I capturing the essence of this? Um, or am I missing something that that under the one view would be no ad hoc committee Can be created by anybody without full council approval And the other is a more flexible view, but maybe problematic that no, we'd like it to be possible for Committees to form ad hoc committees without having to Go through a whole series of steps including going before the full council Is that capturing it or am I As often simplifying it a bit That's okay. That's that's what I'm understanding it to be And I don't know I don't have a clear answer in my head. I like the idea of Committees having that flexibility having that sort of autonomy Not having to go through all kinds of steps just to sort of tackle an issue they want to tackle But that means committees are off Potentially creating all kinds of ad hoc committees that the council has no necessarily no knowledge of or approval of they just go off and do it so I've always been Uncomfortable with that section anyway in work groups Given the town attorney's opinion that The committee's Membership need to be appointed by the president I think it helps the president if the full council talks about their goals for that committee and that the president's present for that discussion versus it happening Separately siloed in a subcommittee of the council say crc or finance or something where the president's not even there and suddenly gets Notified oh, we just created a ad hoc committee And you need to appoint five members and the president wasn't anywhere near In attendance for the reasons behind the creation and hearing from any of the counselors I think it might actually add more work than just bringing having that committee bring to the council The motion to create The ad hoc committee it might create a one or two week delay But then the counselors would be able to and all counselors would know what the purpose is to be able to volunteer for it then so I think Given what the charter says it's more logical to limit it to a council motion That doesn't prohibit a committee from bringing that motion to the council And since we're envisioning that these subcommittees could involve citizens and non counselors That seems to be another very good reason that the the full body be Involved so I think that makes sense to me Does that help you? Steve do you have any thoughts? Okay, so we will put that on do you think you can be ready for that next Meeting one week from today. Okay, that puts us to We're doing a lot of postponing today And gent is not going to get shorter next week um That puts us to reopening the discussion of recommendations related to the gl committee charge Um, particularly with revisions to permit gl to consider policy related matters um, it is 10 of noon the person who requested This be put on this agenda is not here. She will not be here next week either Is this something we want to continue discussing today or do we want to Put this off as we get into at some point in november Um We're going to be looking at all the committee charges of standing committees And is this instead of looking at this siloed at this point should we look at it? As a larger picture five standing committees What are our recommendations? So I'd like to hear thoughts on that Before we get into a discussion now I certainly don't see any reason to have it on the agenda for next meeting And since the person who brought it was particularly interested in it is not even here and won't be here next time And I don't have any strong feelings at the moment and about it and I think It's really going to reflect Our experience of this first year And a kind of Revisiting and rethinking of the whole committee structure and how it's worked and how it hasn't So I guess my feeling would be to Just take this off the agenda at least for the near term And perhaps have it reappear at some future date in november Any other thoughts ebbon So I agree with george. I like the idea Of Having that discussion as part of a larger discussion of the council committee structure because I think george is right It'll reflect sort of a more holistic approach to our committees and also Will reflect our experiences over a longer period of time That said Are We do have A revised charge that we have recommended to the council That we presented to the council that we Didn't really get pushed back on with the exception of the fact that I think Our revised charge at the time had exempted proclamations We've since revised that revised charge that revised Given that In I I assume two council meetings and we will have in place A policy on resolutions proclamations commemorations and citations once we have our second reading and vote on our revisions to rule 8 whatever um I would say that I I don't want to wait to have That bigger discussion about our charge to Put our revised revised charge back in front of the council so that the president doesn't have to keep using 8 point whatever to refer resolutions and proclamations to us that can be an it would be an automatic referral um But it doesn't to me it doesn't make sense to pass rule Our revision to rule 8 that makes resolutions and proclamations A referral and still have a charge that says we only review bylaws and rev resolutions And so I think that those need to be paired So I think that we need to put forth to the council an updated charge That at least that at least uh conforms with What our revisions are to the rules does that make sense? No, that makes complete sense and rule 8 was up for the council last This past weekend got postponed So I can talk to the president and say we we are ready to bring that charge forward It's just hasn't been on a high priority list I can go back to her and say we think they're they need paired and so when rule 8 comes in We have a revised charge. We're ready to bring it is not part of the sort of full on annual discussion revised charge. It's It's specific to these things If that's agreement of the committee, that's what I'll do and then we'll postpone the The discussion about our other more substantive changes to the charge To a time when we're discussing all of the council committee stand standing committee charges Where we can have a more comprehensive discussion So that sounds good to everyone. I'm seeing nods So that's what we will do. Um That puts us to public comment I don't see any public comment So there is no public here to comment Um So we are done with that. We have some minutes to adopt Um september 4 and september 11 minutes Are there any changes? I'm not seeing any Do I hear a motion to adopt the september 4th 2019 and september 11th 2019 gl minutes as presented Nice to move And steve is that a second any discussion? All those in favor That is four zero Which brings us to items not anticipated By the chair, we're chugging along on this meeting when we just post every postpone everything to the next meeting It lengthens the next agendas, but we could done early So, um, I have something that is an item not anticipated. Um There is a council rule that a chair Can not be a chair of two standing committees and this morning CRC Saw fit to Nominate and elect me chair of the community resources Committee I first even though this is not the CRC committee I want to thank steve for his work as chairing that committee since he sits on this one too um, but that requires me to resign as chair of gl because Not only do the rules prohibit it. There is no way I want to be chair and have all the work of two separate Standing committees So I wanted to make that announcement today I will put on next month next wednesday's agenda as the first order of business electing a new chair of this committee um, and then intend for that new chair to Take over the running of the meeting once elected Unless we can talk now since it's unanticipated whether it would be preferred that The election happened at the end of the next meeting Instead of the beginning so that I I don't want to remain chair too long of two committees Um, so I want it to happen at the next meeting But given that it is one week away instead of two weeks away um I would be willing to run the whole meeting before we elect a new chair But thoughts steve So evan chairs Okay, right now um pat chairs audit And George seems to be slinking under the table right now. Um, yeah, so so there are not too many people eligible. Um um Pat has indicated if we're willing to elect A chair today, we could do that today. She would not have a problem with us going through with an election I think it's better to happen on an agenda as a posted agenda item. So I don't Want it to happen Until it's been posted to be happening We can do it at the end of the meeting so that It's easier for whoever is elected chair to have a clean start without having to suddenly take over the running of a meeting mid-meeting um on an agenda that that person did not create Steve so I should make it clear. I'm not interested or able to be chair of this for the same reasons. I'm not chair of the CRC So hi, george So, so I would nominate george by acclimation. Yeah, we're still going to wait till next meeting She has indicated she does not desire to do that. Yeah, but I haven't spoken to her yet and I have a group of people that we're gonna, you know, visit her house Still I'm gonna nominate I'm gonna nominate you. So I I'm willing to take this on. I do not obviously no one looks forward to this kind of task for any committee No, it's it's it's a it's clearly an enormous amount of work And we've been very well served both in ocha and in to you. Well, so I have excellent models But observing these models one feels Highly inadequate. Um, but nonetheless We have to move forward. So so do we I mean, I don't think I heard a second But as chair my preference would be not to elect till next Meeting simply because I think it should be an agenda item But if the preference of the committee is to elect now for Then the new chair to take over Next meeting at the beginning and all the agenda setting this week I'm okay or or given what we've kind of stated even without an election. I'm okay working with A potential incoming chair to make that transition as smooth as possible And as swiftly as possible, but without overwhelming anyone So taken literally the rule says you can't be chair of two committees. So you're currently chair of the crc As of 10 30. Yes. So I would be if there's a second I'd prefer to dispense of this today Evan I think I see some value in having it as a posted agenda item If there's the potential for an actual election But given that three of the five members are ineligible and a fourth member Is withdrawing himself from consideration It doesn't it doesn't seem like doing it now versus another meeting Does any anything and I think that it gives Our incoming chair And let's see withdraws from consideration and then who knows what happens, but but I think that um But I and actually what I was going to say is I'd be I'd be comfortable doing it now But I also would want to hear from George I mean there's the idea of just throwing someone in a deep end and seeing what happens Um and sometimes people drown, but usually they survive I what I'm hearing I will abide by the decision of the group if the three of you want to move ahead I won't Resist it or speak against it, but What you're envisioning is then whoever is elected hypothetically the new chair would be running the meeting from the get-go Um nsd points out you really can't have technically speaking To chairs Someone can't be chair of two committees at the same time and that's really what would be the case Next week technically speaking So, uh, perhaps we should just go ahead. Um, I I'm I'm knowing Mandy joe I'm sure she will assist me in every way she possibly can And I will certainly be begging for that assistance but Perhaps we should just go ahead and do this and Let Mandy now focus. I mean she will now be chair of CRC as she is chair of CRC So it's probably appropriate that she step down um, and she uh, and that we elect a new chair The one other option that I am loath to put out there is the fact that if If george feels that he is not ready or doesn't want to chair a meeting a week from now You could leave and I could as vice chair run the next meeting And not to give you some time but also to to to comply with the rules, but to give you some time Uh, to sort of get the hang of it. I I wouldn't be thrilled about doing it, but I would do it if you feel uncomfortable I think we should just go ahead and do it. Um, and I I know you will be uh forbearing and the main thing is that that I not miss something that needs to be done, but um I think uh, we should probably just go ahead and do this and Hopefully between the two of you With your support will will manage So it sounds like do I hear a nomination for george? a nomination for a new chair My announcement was sort of my resignation. Um, it's just went if we're if we're comfortable doing it now I will announce that I am resigning as of the adjournment of this meeting So I nominate george by acclamation. Is that a good thing? Can you do an acclamation? I nominate george second So we do it's a guaranteed tie And and I heard a second by evan on that. Do you accept the nomination george? Yes, I do. Okay um Any discussion? Seeing none all those in favor We got three all those against All those abstaining and one abstention Congratulations george. You are now the chair of gol Following on mandy joe's graciousness. I'd like to thank her for her amazing job Chairing getting this committee going and also for taking on the The crc. Thank you. That's a high bar There is Are there any other items not anticipated? Seeing none, we will When we bring up all committee when george puts on the agenda all committees later on this year You can you can bring that one up as a possibility. I have seen that we are adjourned. I'm just declaring as adjourned at 1205 p.m Thank you all for your work. It's been a pleasure chairing this one