 You can call us to order George. I know I don't think we should start before I don't think we can't. Well, we can start for 930. I'm not sure we should. No, we cannot. Even how powerful this committee is we can do whatever we want. Exactly. Let's think what we could do. Athena's clock says 934 or something. So much for computer. Yeah, that's what computer time was, was sacrosanct. Let us begin. Let's start. So we are recording. Excellent. Yeah, sir. I see the presence of a quorum. And so I'm going to call this meeting of to L to order it is depending on your computer clock either 939 34 may even be 929 in some places but consensus is it's 930. I call this I'm going to call this meeting to order pursuant to Governor Baker's March 12 2020 order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law. This meeting of GOL is being conducted by remote participation. And I'm going to take a moment and and we are being recorded. And I'm going to take a moment and just make sure everybody can be heard. So Mandy. And Andy. Present. And Pat. Present. And Lynn. Present. All right. George Ryan. He's unfortunately he's here. So there's nothing we can do about that. We have a very full agenda as I'm sure you're aware. And I'm going to pretty much follow the order of the agenda. I will be keeping my eyes on items not anticipated because we do have one resolution that has been sent to us. And so it's important that we I would think at least 10 minutes maybe 15 minutes devoted to that. So at some point we may have to break the agenda line and go directly to that we're aiming at a hard 1130 stop. But we should stop. And also because today of course is the inauguration a number of us would like to witness the events. So I'm also going to delete from the agenda unless there's an objection, which is certainly free to raise. I'm going to delete item number five, which is the review and discussion of the, I'm sorry, item number six, which is the review of the timeline for the town manager goals and evaluation. We may have time for that. Now, we really zoom along. I may change my mind, but is there any objection to deleting that if we have to the moment I'm don't think we have time to get to the timeline. As long as we put it on a very near future meeting. Yes, and so it would be one of the items if we don't get it to today would be on the items for next meeting, which I have already a couple. So I want to start with the, the review of the rules of procedure we've made very good progress last time. We made a couple of changes, and that document Lynn sent kindly to me and it's in packet. And it is council rules procedure revised 2020. I'm going to quickly remind us of what we did. We made a slight change to the rule 6.3 d. Basically saying that a member may speak without recognition to call the previous question. And we've also asked the president this is not a change to the text but we've asked the president to more strictly enforce the rules which govern how a longer counselor may speak. So at 6.3, we lowered the length of we changed number three to two minutes for the time that a counselor may speak. And we also asked, I believe this is correct, but please correct me if I'm mistaken. We asked that a clock be reintroduced into the meeting if that's possible, such as one was present when we met in the council room. And those are my understandings of our last and also thank you. No taker because I was able to use the minutes and that was helpful to me as well to check against my notes but that's what I recall anything that anyone that I recall changes we've made. We discussed deleting 8.2 F and the equivalent paragraph and 8.6 and we ultimately did decided not to do that. And we also decided not to delete 8.4 which requires two readings of most measures. Is that everyone. Yeah, Lynn. I want to clarify two things. The section on that we're looking at right now. We agreed that I will be sharing this with the council either today or tomorrow in prior to the next meeting without the changes. Is that correct. You'll be sharing I'm sorry what sharing this section 6.3 members prior to meeting on the 25th but I not have the changes as they are up here here. And the point of sharing that is simply to alert them to your desire to better or to enforce the rules about speaking is that the point. That's correct. In addition to that I have explored the issue of a clock. And we and Sean is exploring various options so that we will have either the ability for counselors to individually look at a clock that they can pull up on zoom or we'll have a clock that is shown on zoom on Monday the 25th. Good. Excellent. Okay. Okay. Um, Mandy Joe has her hand up. Mandy, please. Thank you. I was just wondering, I have two more requested changes as I reviewed the rules or or not necessarily changes but thoughts. I don't know when you want them mentioned. The next item on my very detailed notes here is any further discussion of any further new items we first of all any further discussion of the matters we've just discussed and it seems like other than lens comment there is no further discussion and that's people's understanding where we stand at the moment. Then yes the next item I have here is any new items and so Mandy please go ahead. Just to I'll start with the one that might be a little quicker 4.3 section 4.3. It's the additional public comment and it's it has the word shall in it and in the zoom era and other times we've we've got the word shall with this shall and with the separate public comment so I wondered if we wanted to just change it to may. Okay. Let's take a moment and look at 4.3. I will read it when presentations discussions or major action items appear on the agenda for the first time. The president or presiding officer shall include additional public comment session specific to the issue. It may include some giving support that. So Lynn. Okay. Any other thoughts this gives obviously some discretion to the presiding officer. I don't have a problem with it with it. If it's, if it seems like it is unfairly limiting public comment and we can say that to the president and have it change, you know, as because it's a may. It gives us flexibility. I guess I'm saying. Are you suggesting that someone on the council could could say, you know, a madam president. I think we should have public comment. In other words, we have a debate about it or. No, I'm saying, I know, I'm saying, okay, here's the way I thought about it. One, it should be changed to may. But I want us to be. If, if there's a consistent lack of public comment directed to an issue when it's brought up, right, which I don't think is going to happen, but if it does, then I would like to be able to then say to the president either in a meeting or privately. I think it's a way to bring it back. It's a may it's flexible. Let's make sure people have the opportunity to speak. Man, could you speak for a second to the purpose behind this. Yeah, I mean, my thoughts are to try and in some sense get the rules reflective of what we're doing, and a shall is not what we're doing and we've, we were doing the shall and it's not that I don't support the shall we found, at least in the zoom era but also in the non zoom era that the public got very confused about separate speaking times and not and so we've gone back and forth so more it's it's not necessarily to say we should never have these separate ones it's more of, we've run into problems. We're not doing the shall so let's just make the rules reflect what we're doing and trying to do, which is figure out a way to run it as of the May. While also not confusing the public. Yeah, I think that I agree with the change. There's several points of vagueness in the rule as it is which I don't think we should change, but we, what is the definition of a major action item, and is another one. And I think that you get into confusions then is to is it a major action item is it the first time it's coming up that we usually know that the public doesn't always know. And the word shall then sort of makes everybody think that there might be a separate set of public comment on an issue that they're thinking about which is not the intent. The president's usually been very good about actually always been very good about saying when it's anticipated, but as Mandy says it brings it into conformance. So it brings it into conformance for the actual practice that that's one reason and the main reason. It's not to save time necessarily I mean or is that that okay, and actually it saves enormous time to have public comment once. But that's that's my thought. Let me express my thought and it's more of a logistical matter and to bring us into conformance with what we do at this point. Okay. I'm wondering what, yeah I'm wondering what the practice of other councils is in regard to this. It seems like we go to, I would say, the far end of the spectrum. The understanding is that there must be time for public comment, and that is often placed at the beginning of a meeting like ours. And at that point we then turn to our business. But we do not do that we will stop at certain points as we are doing our business. After we've had general public comment and provide for public comment on specific items. Is this the general practice is does that even maybe that doesn't even matter. I think Mandy Joe can speak to this I'd like her to make sure we refer to what the charter says. Okay please Mandy. I would say I actually served on a panel last night for the Watertown Charter Review Commission, talking about councils and manager systems. And then we talked a little bit about what we do to Watertown. We, there was a lot of conversation about public comment and public participation so there were four, three other counselors there from towns that had mayors because they were talking about more of the system of government but none of them had multiple public comments during sections during their meetings it was all at the beginning and all and so what we do goes beyond what typical councils do do if we do provide for multiple comment sections during a meeting. That's not to say I'm against it I actually do like that. It's just from this point of view and the charter doesn't require the multiple comment sections the charter just requires at a regular meeting to have one public comment period. I still support the section and having the separate ones. I just don't like the fact that we have rules we don't follow. And one of the reasons we haven't been following it is particularly on zoom it has been very confusing to people of can you talk here and there and what can you say at this one and what can you say at that one that's been harder to manage on a online system than it has been in a public system in sort of an in person system and so so it's not that I don't support having them it's it's more of we're in a new world and and we haven't been doing it and so let's give our president. The flexibility that in theory, didn't exist before. I also ask another clarifying question manager is public comment required by state law. I have no idea I think so maybe. The reason I'm asking this is because I've been engaged in a discussion very recently particularly with regard to the school committee, and the fact that they don't do live public comment they only do written public comment. And in that conversation, which also at one point included talking with Paul, I got the impression that some councils don't even do public comment, I'm going you're kidding. So, I mean, I do know the governor's order for this zoom era did give more leeway as to what public comment looks like. Okay. So we can look into Pat you have your hand raised. Yeah, I agree that things are slightly different with zoom. I'm very concerned that residents have a chance after a presentation, or after a discussion to make public comment. Sometimes the issue may be fresh for the people who are watching it. And I, and I think that's important to have the flexibility. I also would hate to see public comment only be written and I think it would be a giant mistake. I agree totally. I just to be very sure Pat I'm not suggesting that I was okay. I'm just, that's fine. I'm going to I'm going to give a little pushback briefly and then I think we need to move on. I'm very concerned about the length of our meetings, and we haven't had much progress in that regard and there are many reasons and causes. But our meetings are basically designed for us to get our work done. I think that our town have many, many ways in which they can reach us. We have all kinds of avenues for people. We also, I think I've agreed that any major measure requires at least to formal meetings of the council. I guess I have a little I certainly am not against public comment and I think so far it's actually worked fairly well, but it does create for any given meeting depending on the item that we're dealing with. It could turn a four hour meeting into a six hour meeting. And that's what worries me, I think the public has a right to speak, and we have a place for that. But once we start having other places in a meeting, I get concerned just about the practical issue of us getting our work done. And going forward in the future, trying to convince other people to take on this job, when almost meeting after meeting we're here until 11 sometimes 1130 sometimes midnight. I wouldn't say the public comment is the main reason. Maybe in fact it isn't the reason at all and so my whole objection is not mute but I, I really am concerned going forward, especially as we get into some very controversial issues over the next few months that if we have special periods, I mean maybe we'll make any difference. The comments will come at the beginning or the come wherever they're placed but that's my concern is about us getting our work done and creating these special moments of extra public comment. Actually, I understand the motive and I actually think it's a good one, but it actually prevents us or I think it makes it harder for us to actually get our work done and that's really important. So that's my concern. And at this point I think perhaps we'll just let that sit. Because I don't think we have the time or the energy to wrestle with it. But that's my deep concern is that we're just we're having a hard time getting our work done. One other comment and just so again we differentiate. When we have special council meetings, which we may do we are required to have a regular council meeting once a month, but only at regular council meetings that public comment is required. Special council meetings, we do not have to require public comment. And the other thing is, and I'll just, this is a little bit of a preview, as we get ready for the library. There's one evening in which there's a fairly long presentation and discussion with the council. That's going to be followed by one if not two public forums. Right, exactly. So that's really the intention there to have the public comment and not have it the night of the presentation but you know they'll still be a general public comment. So that good that would then give you as a presiding officer whoever the presiding officer is the flexibility to say look we definitely want public comment but it's not going to be at this meeting because we've got our business to do, but we are having a public forum with public forums where you know give the dates or whatever and you're, that's what we have them for so that makes sense to me. Okay, so this, I think we have before us a motion that are potential motion. Seconded. We're in rule 4.3. Right for the sake. Yeah. Is that clear the motion that we are essentially changing shall to may in rules of procedure 4.3. And it's been seconded any further discussion. Seeing none. I'm sorry. It should I guess be a motion to recommend changing. Right. We can't change it on our own. Sorry to recommend changing. Okay. Thank you. So that change to the motion recommend changing. And I see no further comment. So I'm going to go directly to vote Mandy. Yes. The chair is a yes, Andy. Yes. Pat. Yes. Lynn. Yes. All right. That's unanimous five zero to make that recommendation for rules of procedure 4.3. I have one more. I'm going to recommend because time is short that I mentioned what I'm thinking about and then come back at the next meeting with actual language, because I think it would need to be tweaked. And it's in rule 2.1 election of officers. Okay. I am, I am wondering whether this committee would support actually putting in the sort of. Rules that we've been using this last time and all, and really thinking about that into, you know, the sort of the, I don't know what we called that script or whatever, but the procedures we've been using into the rules of procedure. You know, how much time to comment who comments, all of that. And if the committee wants or thinks that's a good idea, I'm happy to come back with actual language. I want to just comment, George, and just say, I think that would be terrific because I think one of the things we want to do is basically provide for future councils are practice. And that would put this in the place where they wouldn't have to look for it. Okay. Um, this is really then something for the, perhaps the next meeting is what I haven't penciled in tentatively if people are willing to take it up. We're not going to take it up now, but any questions for Mandy about this and any thoughts about whether you want to take it up. Not now, but later. I'd like to take it up later. Okay. All right, then I'm going to pencil this in as a item for the next meeting. And we'll have a discussion about the rules of procedure. The rules of procedure 2.1. Election of officers and what Mandy suggesting is that, and she will provide us with the draft, but essentially bring you an actual draft. Right. Okay. Good. All right. Um, What I have. So again, if anyone has any other specific rules, procedure, they'd like us to review or discuss. Um, the rules of procedure 2.1. Um, And then I'm going to give you the packet that I was going to use with your permission and we can also just decide we just don't want to deal with it. Um, because this is again, it's just part of the process that I'm trying to create here for how do we manage to review. Um, this long and complex document. Um, and we could be done right now, quite frankly. Um, and the title of it is, Uh, where is it? Disposition referral of future agenda items to GOL. And, um, it's just basically a list of 14 topics, some of which are really not relevant to the rules of procedure necessarily. Um, and I, we can say this for another day. I asked people to look at it, but I realized you're all very busy. And the point of going through it ideally in advance before we talk about it now is that you might be able to basically say many of these are simply not relevant or we need to talk about these some other day, or we can just dispose of them right now. For instance, item number two, these were issues raised by counselors that Lynn basically put under the category of GOL. And some of them I think would involve changes to the rules of procedure if we thought they merited it. Some of them I don't think have anything to do with the rules of procedure and actually I'm not sure they have anything to do with GOL. But that's what I have as a document. The other thing I have, and you can decide is who proposes a bylaw. This is something that was raised to me the other day. What are the rules in terms of who can bring a bylaw to the council. And so I also put a document in there that just reminds us of the mass general law that governs zoning bylaws. There it's governed by law, but to my knowledge there's nothing that governs who can bring a general bylaw. And whether we want to get into that today, I don't know, but that was a issue that was raised as potential for rules of procedure. What are the rules, what do we tell people about who can bring a bylaw. So those are the two sort of boxes or whatever bowls that I have. And the question is, do you want to deal with either one of them or both or none. Andy Joe has your hand up. Andy, please. Yeah, I wonder if we could take the 14 and run through them quickly and just sort of do a informal poll for each one, whether it's something committee think should be discussed in further detail, or whether it shouldn't be without the actual discussion of it in detail but we might be able to eliminate a number of these if everyone on the committee happens to agree. I like that I also think I'm prepared to take a few notes like for example, put this in our rules of procedure or already done or whatever. That's what that's what I have in mind, I agree. But anyone else have thoughts on this one way or the other. Again, this arose from a memo that Lynn sent us quite a while ago that I've extracted from that memo. This list of 14 items that felt that some of them would be interesting discussion or potential for the future so if people are okay. We'll start with item number one process of appointing non voting members to define you make it bigger. That's me. Hold on and see if you can make it bigger. Thank you just have to zoom in the 100% down at the bottom just needs to be more, you know. Yeah, that's better thank you. Okay. So, if I could comment on number one. On there through a CRC vote a while ago that didn't relate directly to only the finance committee CRC recommended that at one point that the council refer to GOL. In particular, a discussion as to whether the council as a whole should have rules surrounding term limits and reappointments for all of the committees. Whether those should remain members to, or resident members to so planning board ZBA and finance committee, or whether those should remain sort of in some sense at the discretion of each individual counselor. I would like to see a discussion of at some point, but I would like to see it as sort of a comprehensive. Should the council sell a full set of rules or should it be remain at the discretion of the council individual counselors. Would it be at their discretion or would it be at, I guess, or what you mean is discretion of the individual committee that's responsible for the recommendation committee and in the end the counselors who vote right. No, okay. I can get you the exact language CRC voted to ask the council to refer to GOL but it that's what this one comes from is that sort of discussion I believe. Yeah, that's correct. It's a discussion later, not today. Yeah, one for later definitely this is something that people want to take up or are adamantly against kicking up or could care less. I think we should take it up but later. Okay, I agree. Okay, so I want to know whether I'm still on the committee after today. Yeah, later. We all know the issue that cat you're the only one who doesn't but not want you to feel, you know, bad about that. We all know the answer. I'm going to give you guys a lot of work. All right. And if she's on it, she's going to say no to most of these. Exactly. So, an item to clarification regarding. I'm sorry. Yeah, I think that that's nothing needs that's just take it out. Okay, good. That's right. Again, please speak up because I have my head down here a lot of the time. Don't be shy. All right, how town councils can provide their thoughts comments to town council committees they're not members of. That's already dealt with in the rules. And could you give me the specific rule. You're going to make me find that paraphrase it because totally some counselors are confused about this. So the rule says that counselors may participate in committee meetings as a member of the public if they're not on that committee, there's so in that sense that parts in the rules. And then beyond that to me it's a logical thing of you can always email the chair of the committee. All right, of course, there are many, many ways you can express, but I here's where I guess my thought is there's a difference between practice and rule because practice. I think of TSO recent TSO meeting, where I think we were almost outnumbered. We certainly were outspoken by our fellow counselors at a TSO meeting. It was a committee of the whole. Okay, you call committee the old. It was committee of the whole. Thank you. All right, that's that's my. I think the issue is, if a counselor would like their comments to be in writing. That's the one I've been asked. If a counselor wants to write comments. Yeah. How do they give them to the committee. You send them to the chair. Yeah. As the chair posts them. I would be required to, I'm sorry, Mandy. So rule 10.2 b2 counselors, including the president, not appointed as a member of a specific council committee are entitled to participate in the same manner as members of the public. So 10.2 b2. Right. And so they can provide their comments, but I would say they get treated as any other member of the public. If the committee does not. Published public comments written to the committee. Then in theory, those counselor public comments would not get published. That doesn't mean that the chair can't under discretion bring up those issues during discussion. And even potentially identify what counselor made them or what member of the public made them. The committee's always committee members always have the option of bringing up items that members of the public have mentioned as part of the discussion. I'm just thinking of practice. I sometimes we will solicit comments from our colleagues, and then we will present them at the meeting for the first time we don't send them in advance, but we present them at the meeting. And in my practice, based on other people's practice that you're not give names, I just list number them one, two, three, whatever. And then we go through those comments. This is different than that. I mean, isn't this the same. I mean, so it is. It's coming from a specific counselor to would like to be able to send comments to a committee. Okay, have them become public. They're not solicited by the committee for all counselors to do so. Yes. Yes. Thank you for that clarification. Sounds like it's a discussion for next time. Or for a future future time. Unless people have a feeling like the rule is there. And for written comments. Yeah, it's not really appropriate. I mean, why would it be appropriate for somebody to be able to have their written comments sent to a particular committee to be made public. I mean, seems if they want to say something publicly, they can say it in a council meeting, or they can come and speak as a member of the public, or they can talk to individual colleagues as long as they don't violate the open meeting law. They can speak to their colleagues. So what's the, what's the argument here. I think we need to just put it. Obviously. Yeah, people want to come back to it though. Yes. Okay. All right, that votes four to one. All right. I'd rather not. Three to two. All right. All right, we'll come back to it and maybe we'll dismiss it quickly or whatever, but we'll come back to three at a future date because it does seem to be some interest in in a further discussion. I four. I don't see where we, we have any role to play in telling town committees what they how the reports should be written. But anybody thoughts on four. I agree. I mean we could create a template but they don't have to follow it and why should they. Right. Well, let's not waste the time making a template. Well, we won't today but I guess Pat the question is whether people feel like, you know, well, yeah. No, we don't have the right to tell committee how to structure their reports so why even go to the work of creating a template that's not then going to be used. Right. It just a waste of our time anybody's time. I think I think we as a council have a right to say things like, you know, we would like the reports to include who was there who was absent. The major themes of the discussion if there was a minority vote, those kinds of things. But the committees get to set their own rules regarding that under the charter. So we can't tell them exactly what has to be involved. Any reports that we're hoping to get is basically we're talking about annual reports. No, no. Committees don't do annual reports. Okay, so this is just any report that they might send. Wait a minute. I'm sorry. This, this does address. This is not town council committees. This. Right. I'm sorry. This came from a counselor based on the annual reports that are required by virtue of the charter. Right. I personally believe it's getting to be too in depth if we start trying to set. Those annual reports are not part of the legislative section of the charter anyway they're part of the elected offices section. And the board of license commissioner section. So I don't believe we have any right to tell them what they have to look like. Okay. All right. I think there's a consensus there unless I hear otherwise we're Andy please. Yeah, I would just check because there's always been an annual town report. History began and I think that it's actually a requirement somewhere in state statute. And committees include reports all committees are supposed to provide reports for those annual reports. And so we better make sure that the annual reports which really put together I think by the clerk. We're working in a manner that's consistent with other reports that are being provided to them and not duplicate it at the same time. We need to discuss this later because we're getting in too deep. Okay. I guess there's two things one is, are we going to dictate how the reports themselves be written and the answer seems to be clearly we're not. The other seems to be. And this seems to question for the clerk. And I'm not sure that there's have been a problem, which is are the committees actually doing what they're supposed to do in terms of the annual town report. But that's a clerk question. Not a question for us. Is that correct. So Andy's question is really just, you know, reaching out to the clerk and saying, you know, are you getting what you need. Are we following our committees following the rules that are set down, but we don't set the rules and we don't oversee it. Correct. And being a city there might not be an annual town report anymore under state law. All right, so we need to check the state. The chair needs to look into this and he can do that. Okay. Okay. All right. And if need be I'll come back if not at one. Okay. I'm the one that's introduced this next one. And I think it's a later discussion. I agree. And okay. And it's something that's suitable for GOL. Yes. Where else would it go. Okay. So this is for later as well. I know quite what accessibility to meetings means, but that's all that was there. So I wrote it down. Hearing and language and sign, including sign language. Okay. And to me, it also means having people's faces present from the public. I, I, you know, the way that we do it. Right. It doesn't have to be talked about right now. I agree. It's a discussion for a separate meeting. And people feel like they do want to discuss it. Yep. That's to anyone else. Yes. Okay. All right. So that. Yeah. All right. All right. Sign language public visible platform, basically the zoom platform issue. Okay. How to share public comment. I think we should discuss this with, I think we should discuss it later. And we should include. The clerk of council. Okay. Okay. I have an opinion. If I think I know what this means is this, I'm trying to publish every single email that we got get in our email and boxes as quote public comment for a specific meeting. Or a specific issue. Yes, it is. That's what this means. So this is, this is basically about emails, messages and what to do with them. From the situation. And whether to put them in the packet or not in wholesale. I don't think they should be placed in the packet. We all get them. And we should be reading them. Right. The person that's pushing this is interested in making sure the public sees them. Frankly. Well, I could go on. I think this is a. Pat. I don't really want to talk about this later. I think it's an unreasonable request to our town staff. And they have better things to spend their time on than this. Since counselors get these anyway. And if the public really wants to read it, they can make a public records request. So I'm just going to strike this unless I hear any strong opposition. I think that's a separate issue. We're not going to come back to this. At least not. This committee is not coming back to it unless we're compelled to do it. Unless it's referred to. Okay. We have an item. Library being one school building. If we have something like that. Can. A decision be made to have a place on the website for public comment or something. I mean, I think that's a separate issue than publishing emails. Cause that would be a separate type of platform. I mean, if, if you go to say the library and decide to publish emails, are we going back two years to every single email we've gotten? Or is it during a specific time period? I think it's just too much staff time. All right. So that is going to be stricken. Number seven. Eight. Okay. I think that's a separate issue. We have emails, texts from constituents during meetings. Rule 6.1 C and D. In our rules of procedure kind of deal with this matter. Again, six point. One C and D. Okay. And what do they say, Mandy? They say, let me, let me get up to those rules. Those are ones I already had that number written down. So I didn't have to look it up. Okay. And D. says cell phones and other such devices shall be silenced during council meetings. And D counselors and members of the public shall not hold private conversations during council meetings. All right. That seems pretty clear. And I will not discuss. I just won't say anything. You could text the information. I'm going to plead the fifth on this one. I think we are all going to play the fifth. I think the point is well taken. It should not happen. It's against the rules. And in my case, it will not happen again, but I was not. I guess I'm learning the rules. Okay. I have, I will just tell you there are times that counselors have become disconnected. And they have texted me to tell me that. That's different. Yeah, that's different. But we did have a situation not too long ago where there was a tremendous confusion about the rules governing elections. And I have a feeling that there was a fair amount of emailing going on. And maybe it's another way to the rule, but sometimes it gets broken for whatever reason. And, but we're not supposed to. The answer is this is against the rules. Except as. As I heard. As I heard Mandy reading that rule, it was about communications amongst the council. And this is really talking about. Communications from the public. So. I'll go on, Andy. Well, I think I've said it. So I'm just seeking clarification. So section D says counselors and members of the public shall not hold private conversations during council. Okay. Read as between counselors or between members, you know, when we're in a meeting or amongst the two. Yeah. And it does make very good sense. It's a public meeting. People should have access to our deliberation. And if we're having deliberations secretly with whomever, that's totally inappropriate. So that, I think that's answered. Rules and guidelines for when the president calls a committee of the whole. Mandy Joe put this one in because I did not consult her first about a CRC meeting. I stand. No. It's part of that. But I think Alyssa originally brought this forward like a year and a half ago when there was a lot of committee of the whole meetings being called. But I actually would say there shouldn't, we don't need to deal with it. It's just something that people should work out on their own. Any other thoughts on this? Feel it rises to the level of us needing to discuss it further. Okay. All right. So we're going to strike that. Yeah. I think 10 is should be stricken. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Reviewed annually anyway. It's reviewed annually by the rules. So. I'm good with that actually because I mean that, that's certainly not anything I've been thinking about or we've been talking about. No, I disagree, George. We briefly discussed it at one point and we said, we don't think we need to change this year. Okay. No, well that, you know, all right. But the thought is that we are supposed to is part of our charge. We're not going to change this year. We're not going to change this year. We're not going to change the structure. Whether we think there's any need for a change. And I'm getting a sense from the members here that there is no sense that we need to change. And unless counselors or individual counselors have something very specific. This is stricken. It's been considered. Been considered. Okay. The answer. Okay. Now this one also, I think it's been settled. I think it's been settled. I think it's been settled. I think it's been settled. I think the sole objection was with this committee. And I still maintain that if you're a member of this committee and you're presenting something. As a sponsor, you should, you should not. Vote on whether it's clear, consistent, actionable. I have no problem with you participating. I have no problem with you. Right. But I think for this particular committee. It seems inappropriate. Now I know some of us. I don't know if you believe it. I don't think it's worth our time and effort, but I just want to go on record that, that it's not about counselors and other committees or other context. It's just with this particular committee, given its charge. It does seem to me inappropriate for a sponsor to be voting on whether it's clear, consistent and actionable. And I agree with you. You agree or disagree. I disagree. Yeah. I do too. I agree with you. Any state statute allows us to borrow up counsel from voting on anything unless. No matter what it is. Okay. Well, I guess George, is there ever been a time where you felt like there was some egregious. No, no, no, but I just. It's not appropriate. I mean, you know, because. I mean, you know, this is your baby. I mean, I think it's just about the substance. Of what I'm presenting. Not. Clear consistent and actionable because I feel like when I've, when I've worked on things and. They have gotten better or some, a change might have happened that I don't completely agree with, but it's not one that affects things substantively. And I think that it's, it's, I don't understand. I just don't understand your. Okay. All right. I'm going to say everything today. Did I want to say. Particularly how much I enjoy this committee in case I'm not on it. Go ahead. Well, that's, that's a fine endorsement. You're, you're out the door. And you're telling me. May I text Pat. I've used that on a few old girlfriends. It didn't break. You're going to break the rules. The president particularly. They're not ready to come back, but they're not ready to come. You're going to break the rules. And they're all bound. Andy, please. Yeah. I mean, I raised this when I first joined the committee. It was sort of my instant reaction because. It seemed to me. That there was a lot going on back and forth. On a particular issue. And I'm not going to go back and revisit that particular issue. With town council, with outside sponsors and advocates for the, for the issue that we were confronting. And it just struck me that there was just too much participation to say that the members of the committee could then say that they could separate out their roles easily between what they're doing as members of the committee and what they were doing as sponsors or advocates and it just struck me as uncomfortable. And that was as a new member of the committee. And I felt, I felt strongly about it. Did you feel Andy that that basically we were crossing the line into advocacy for or against the item as opposed to simply trying to get it in a form that was acceptable to everyone to get before the council is being clear consistent action because again we tried sometimes not successfully to focus our energy simply on the clarity of the document, the consistency and the action ability and apart from our own feelings about whether we think this is a good idea or not. I know I've been in that situation and I'm probably going to be in that situation again soon where I think something is, is not really a great idea. But that's different from my role here, which is just to make sure that it is clear consistent and, and something that is actionable. So I think we've done a pretty good job with that, but it sounds like at least in your experience so far, you felt it's a little fuzzier and at times people have crossed over into the line of advocacy as opposed to simply trying to do the job that that we're doing. Or is it more that you're not, I mean, there's some lack of clarity about the job itself that we're doing in other words about clear consistent and actionable. I think that it's because there's a sandwich confusion about what the terms clear consistent actionable mean. And I'm not sure that we're ever going to improve on that beyond what we have now. But some of it comes there and yeah, a little bit of it did come across as advocacy. But I don't think it was necessarily meant in a bad way. The sponsors were trying to make sure that the best possible language was before the council. And they were doing that both as a sponsor. And as a member of the committee to make sure it was clear consistent and actionable. So that's where the confusion comes in. Mm hmm. Okay. I'm prepared to move on. I think I've accepted not to feed here, but I think it's the position's been made clear. And so I'm ready to strike it. We certainly can come back at any time to Andy's larger issue of, you know, the meaning of those three words and how it plays out in actuality. That's certainly something we can take up at any time. If a member wishes to do so at the moment, I'm not planning to put it on any agenda, but if people feel strongly individually that they'd like us to go back and revisit that. At some future point, we certainly can do that. Number 12. Yes. Okay. I'm going to send it over to TSO if we think it should be discussed. There is a. Bylaw on the books. Yep. Which I came across when I was preparing for my own bylaw. Assignments. Yep. So you say look to review. Are you saying referred bylaw to TSO? So, so I am saying it doesn't belong in GS. GOL if there's a review that it belongs in TSO. I don't, that, that has no bearing on whether I believe we should be doing anything at all with it right now. It's just, it doesn't belong in GOL. Okay. Do we want to decide if it needs to be reviewed? What. Do we want to decide if it needs to be reviewed? I think that should be a council decision and the counselor or counselors need to bring it up at a meeting and say, we want this to dealt with. And then the council should vote to send it hopefully to the right place, which would be TSO. But I'm not sure we have the authority to send it to TSO. Or even recommend that. It's really, if somebody wants to raise this as if this has been raised by a counselor. It has. Then it needs to be brought up, I guess, at a council meeting. And briefly discussed and then the council needs to vote where to send it. And I think Mandy's correct. It should probably go to TSO, but I don't think we have a place in this. Okay. I am just writing myself a note here. I mean, and if there's a counselor that wants to have a rule, that discussion should actually be accompanied by, since there's a by-law, probably by an actual by-law amendment, not just a TSO. I mean, I'm aware of who the counselor is. I will send the by-law to them and just say, you know, you need to decide if this is sufficient. And you know, Lynn, the by-law and number, do you have that handy or not? That's all right. It's okay. You know, pile on my desk. Yeah, you get the same pile I have. That's all right. Yeah. Okay. Good. So Lynn will take care of that. So that's stricken. Time-managed evaluation, goal-setting process. We're dealing with that right now. And by-laws, that's, we're dealing with that as well. So 13 and 14 are things we're working on. It is by-law 3.49. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. 3.49. Yep. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. This is in process. All right. So we've gone through this. Thank you. And I will sort it out and. Start putting things on agendas where we've asked to have them come back. But I find this very helpful. The other item that I'd put as about who proposes a by-law, do people want to discuss this today? Or at least be introduced to the problem. Or do they want to hold this for a future? We can put that overhead up or we can just say no, let's move on. I'm, hold on just two seconds. Okay. I'm going to just stop sharing this. And hope I've got all the things saved. Can I just say on the, on the bylaw issue. So, we, we, if we don't do it now, we need to do it soon because right now we have two bylaws that are coming up because the state is requiring them. That's illicit discharge and wastewater. I think storm water, I'm sorry. And then we have two more bylaws coming up. One is coming up from committees of the, of the town. One is coming from the. Historic commission and the other is coming from the shade tree commission. And so while we don't have to resolve this today, it needs to be moved up in, in importance. Pat. Yeah, I'm sorry. It's not 3.49. It's 3.39. Sorry. That's all right. Thank you for clarifying that. Given what Lynn said, I'm, we have a section of our rules. I think it was part of the. Document you provided George on bylaw introduction. I, I'd be willing to intro, you know, to, to draft a change to that section of the rules that address who can sponsor a general bylaw and who can sponsor a non zoning bylaw. Similar to what we did with resolutions and proclamations, but writing it into the rules of procedure. Yeah, I think that, I think that's right. Yeah. And I asked a question about, so the state is very clear state laws very clear about zoning and residents. What would be your thinking? Or do we want to leave this for another time? You know, can one resident propose a new general bylaw? Can 10 residents or can residents not propose a general bylaw? Is it something maybe this is open for us to figure out. Yeah. I mean, so I think my initial draft would, I'm not sure what I'd do with residents in general bylaws but I'm not sure where that would be, but my initial draft would be, would include any one counselor, the town manager, or any committee by a vote of the committee of any town committee by a vote of the committee of the town and the manager would presumably sponsor anything staff proposes, you know. So that would be sort of where I would start from. If I drafted a rule. I think the question Mandy Joe that, and all to the whole committee, I mean, let's give an example. The example is the wild animal one. Rose residents, unlike town meeting, we never collected signatures. I took it. I wrote, I sent the thing out to the counselors. Chalene volunteered and she became the sponsor. The same thing is not identical, but it has some parallel nature to it. And that is when the people from labor unions approached us on the two bylaws, you and Pat sponsored, you pat the sponsor. I think was the two of you, the three of you. You know, you basically volunteer. I think I also sent it to the council and the three of you volunteered the sponsors. I think it's really the issue of what happens when it comes from the public. That little shadier to me. Okay. And we've got some, some guidance with resolutions and proclamations and obviously the charter. And I think our resolution and proclamation was you got to find a council sponsor. Because a counselor has a right to do that. And if you don't, then you got to follow the. Yeah. You could go to a committee. You could go to a town committee. Yeah. There are other options, but just good. So man is going to produce the draft. And that's something that we could even deal with at our next meeting, but soon is what Lynn would like. So. Okay. I will put that down as a possible item from next time. And then the other bylaw. I mean the other rules of procedure issue. Is one that relates to the charter, George, and that's 8.1. Yes. And that is, I believe our next agenda item. If I am. Actually, before I got to 8.1, I wanted briefly. For your sake, Lynn, I hope, but just you've been looking for input from GOL about. Required in future agenda items in 2021. And you may already have everything you need. I think you asked the members of this committee to forward you anything that you, they could think of. I didn't come up with much myself. Anyone have, so I came up with what every, so every year we must review the rules or procedures. Okay. That was easy. We also manage, I understand we manage and prepare the town manage performance goals document. So that's something that seems that we at the moment are supposed to do. And, and produce it as a deliverable by a certain date. That's something that, that we do. Right. Yeah. We also oversee the town manager evaluation process. That is correct. Now that's not a specific agenda item, but it gets on the agenda at certain points, but that's much an internal thing for us to keep track of. And then we do owe the council a report and that will go on the agenda at some point for bylaws for future consideration that right now what we've said is we'll give that to them in March. So we owe a report and a discussion, I assume, but at least a report on, and maybe that's not an agenda item. Maybe it's just a report, but we owe them that. Other than that, I could not think of anything now, maybe. Well, the only other thing, and I would just tell you that Athena has already given me a list of all of the, you know, regular, if you will, routine. Proclamations that we pass. Okay. And if you could forward that to me, or I can reach out to Athena, that would be, you know, I keep telling myself, that's something I should have been doing all along. So that was the best records, George, not to worry. I'm thinking go, you know, someday, maybe even soon, there'll be a new chair of this committee that may be hard for some of you to imagine. It's not hard for me to imagine, but it may be hard for some of you to imagine. And I would like to be able to pass on to that, that poor fellow or whatever that poor soul, that list of proclamations, so they have some sense of, of the many things they have to do. So I will reach out to Athena and ask her to send it to me. Go has her hand up. He does. I would add to the list. You'll see this in vein, you know, in, in, as CRC did finance committee appointments. We're going to have to do as GOL. So that's going to have to be on the council agenda for June. Very. You know, thank you, Mandy. That is right. Finance appointments. In June. There might only be one, but. Okay. Right. Yep. I will reach out to Athena. That's a note to myself. Okay. Okay. You know, and then it's, it's just the ongoing. Other bylaws as they come up. Exactly right. There's nothing that we can plan. That's just the way it happens. Right. Okay. All right. Good Lynn. Hopefully that gives you something that will be helpful to you. I have nothing further to add anyone else. So that's agenda item number four. Now agenda item number five is in fact, charter section 8.1. And Andy had many, many, I think very good suggestions. So what we have as far as something to look at. Is attachment B. That document was in the. Yeah. Share point and of course publicly posted. And if Lynn can put that up. We should look at that and see if we, if it captures what we want and if not, we need to change it. And then there are a whole host of questions related to that. That we need to get clarity on. In terms of the process. And we have about. We have pretty good time, I think. Yeah. Yeah. Do you want me to share it? Or if you can't find it. Is this, is this what you're talking about? George and you and I. It should be attachment D. The word document. Yeah. So we can. Okay. That's it. So now Lynn, you may have some other things you want to discuss first with this. So we don't have to start with this. But this was my attempt. To incorporate. The suggestions from the last meeting. And we'll probably definitely. So I think it's going to need some further editing, but. There's some things you want to discuss first. You want to go right to this. No, don't this. Fine. Okay. Well. So attachment D. This is the format. And I think one question we had was whether. Yeah. We're really creating something that in theory could be used by the school committee or the library trustees, but it also seems to me that they could look at this and go, we don't like this. We want to do something different. Is that in fact the case. And if it is, then maybe we have to take out library. And school committee. We're hoping that they'll take this and run with it, but really it's, they get to decide, right? Yes. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. So this. So down below what. I, as I recall, I think it was Andy's suggestion, but basically legible name, legible address. I guess that little box needs to be moved just a little bit to the right. It should be check. If 18 or older. Thank you. Thank you. Phone. Now here, a phone number or email address for contact information. I'm not sure again, somebody helped me. Why do we even need a signature? If we're really only interested in contacting. But I put it in because it was requested. I think. Are it was going to be a three part one and one of the, and it was going to be phone number, email address or signature. One of them is required. Because of for verification purposes. But if we're going to contact people. And all they do is sign it. We'll have a legible address. Thank you. Paper to everyone. Good. So then maybe it should be one box. That says phone number. Email address or signature. And then. For contact purposes only, but I think also it has to read optional. No, we were going to require one of the three. Okay. So then optional gets deleted. And it just becomes a single box. And I'm not sure it's contact purposes. It was for verification purposes. Okay. Because contact purposes may be simply dealt with by sending a postcard or something based on an eligible address. Right. It was for verification purposes. And I think our thought was. Okay. I think we might want to check one of the three. Because the whole thing might be public record. And so someone might not want a phone number, email address, and we don't know whether they could be redacted. And so you could then just provide your signature instead. Okay. This is for verification purposes only. And we might want to check whether if it becomes a, I assume it becomes a public record, whether phone numbers and email addresses can get redacted. Yeah. Yeah. I'm writing that over in a column that I can't even see what I'm writing. Can we redact. This column. In response to a public records request. Yeah. In response to, you know, I mean, town meetings used to publish the names. Of any petitioners. Right. So I guess the first question is to the rest of you. Are you happy with the way this looks? Notice I moved the please include purposes of the meeting. Item up to the text and took it out of the, but that's a very minor thing. It could be put back where it was. I don't really care. And also it sounds like we would then strike school committee or library trustees. Yeah. So I think we want to, at the moment, treat this as a generic document that Paul could then forward to the school committee or library trustees and they can decide if they want to use it or do we just want to strike it. And, you know, basically leave this up to them to figure out what they want to do. Two things. One, I think we should strike that. The Amherst school committee or library trustees. I think we should be able to sign this without any, without any issues with 18 or older. That if I were a young person of 15, I'm still a resident and I might want a public. An open meeting about a particular issue. And I should be able to sign this without some kind of condition about my age. I think most people who were under 18 therefore would not sign this with that there. I don't think it should be there. The charter requires it to be a request of residents. 18 or older. Can we, but see that. So, so the question, I think our question last week. Pat was. Do we want to add a rule to our rules of procedure? That mimics 8.1, but does not, is not called 8.1. That doesn't require that age requirement. So that then a request wouldn't be under 18. That request wouldn't be under section 8.1. It would be under rule of procedure X, Y, or Z. That would be fine with me. I mean, I, one of the things that we've watched around climate issues is the response of young people. And that's also true. They've been true about racism in Amherst. We have young people now on the human rights commission and on. We have a community safety working group. So they should have every right that I have. Well, what we could do is have two formats. You're not. Or, you know, maybe. People don't always want to disclose their age. I'm wondering though, if we write a new, there's a rule. In the rules of procedure that talks about section 8.1. Yeah. Of the charter. You know, we could draft a new rule of procedure. That references 8.1, but says. All requests under 8.1 shall fall under this rule too. Or, you know, or this rule does whatever, or we could. I would be willing to try to, to sort of word it. So it's not under section 8.1. If there, you know, add something like that, but then it would also be include the procedures we talked about, about notifying the all who, you know, who are listed as. Of the time and location of the meeting and then a public notice procedure that I think Andy talked about two weeks ago that we could write into the rules of procedure or. If we didn't want to accept, I think it would have to be a separate rule. Into some sort of policy document. Okay. So. I'm hearing a couple of different questions. So I just want to clarify. One is we may put in our rules of procedure. A second option. For. 15. But there's two issues that you just raised. That Andy or you, somebody raised last time. And that is not listed here. And that is the notification of all who are listed. And that is the notification of all who are listed. And that is the notification of all who are listed. And that is the notification of all who are listed. And that is the notification of all who are listed. About. The meeting. And publicly. Posting the meeting. Yeah. And so I'm thinking of sort of. Similar to what I just proposed or what we were talking about in terms of other rules. Adding to the rules of procedure. More specifics on. Charter section 8.1. Regarding its operation. So proposing it essentially as a new rule of procedure. That. Complies with 8.1, but expands so that really the request is not under 8.1. It's under a rule of procedure. 10 point, whatever, whatever it would be. So no, yeah. Okay. I think that's the method in which to realize this, but I still have, I'm struggling with the larger point. Why 15? Why not 16? I mean, there's a certain arbitrariness here. Secondly, you could encourage young people to sign this document. Even though the actual numbers that make it a binding one. Apply only to residents 18 or older. Because they are voters. So I'm sympathetic to the idea of involving young people. I'm a little concerned about the burden on staff. But I think that's a very specific function. And I think it's, at first of all, and secondly, the arbitrariness of the age, you know, it, you know, so 18 has a very specific function in our society at the moment. Now, if we change that fine, but at the moment, that's what it's, it's there for. Could there be a way that. So the 18 or older simply makes it clear that you can be younger than this and sign it and put your name down. But there's also the question of, you know, just sheer, I mean, let's say, you know, a family of five, the parents sign it and the three kids sign it. Do all five of them require then notification individually? I'm just worried about the demand on staff. Well, that's not the only thing. And the other thing is, you know, what's the age limit? And why 15? Why not 16? Why not 14? So can people speak to that a little bit? Cause I'm troubled by both of those, but the arbitrariness of the age and also the, the burden on staff. If you do have, in addition to the, the residents who are 18 or older, now you also have to contact individually, people who are younger. Many thoughts on that at all, maybe none. In terms of 15, I don't think there should be a limit. I don't think many 10 year olds would sign a document, but they might, and that might be really interesting. I'd love to see a movement of 10 year olds. They're often smarter than we are. If we did it, I don't know what age I would put on it. I would think about traditional ages at certain grade levels and what they learn because, you know, there's a lot of curriculum out there where educators are trying to teach students about petitioning government or trying to get a change and it's an organized sort of plan. So I'd want to think about how, if we put an age, a minimum age on it below the 18, if we're going to rewrite a rule and sort of enact a rule in lieu of the charter, what age would be appropriate given the curriculum and where educators are in Amherst is to the civics education. Let me just refresh all of our memories back in normal times. We would be invited to the fair that Fort River would have and they were specifically in many instances wanting to propose bylaws and stuff about environment and that kind of thing. You know, those students could organize at Fort River being about age 10 and, you know, demand a public meeting. Once a year. Once a year. And, you know, I'm not saying I'm, I think that's wrong. I'm just saying we need to anticipate what door we're opening. I actually think it'd be terrific for them to have mock legislative meetings and everything else. But you do get into the question of the amount of council time. Absolutely. Which is again, what's the reality. Right. I think there's also a desire simply to create a workable document right now, rather than resolve a much more complicated larger issue. But if the sense is that we want to resolve that issue, then we'll come back to this in terms of the age and what that means in terms of the document. And also in terms of the rules of procedure. And also it seems to me in terms of staff time. So. Yeah, I think you need to be very careful about what you're doing based on the Ford River experience, which I think is a wonderful program. But the way Ford River was set up is that the. Staff who was working with those students were divided into groups and they may have three or four different issues that they are running and they actually have a process to select the issues. So they start with a larger number of issues in order to select down to the number of issues that they present to members of the legislature, Congress and counselors who have frequently come to that congressman, the governor needs to come quite a quite frequently. And so you could have multiple issues. And if each one of them starts generating requests for an 8.1 type of public meeting, you're really putting a large burden on the council. We may want it, but I don't think you do it to do that lightly. And then you got one or two other elementary schools that were actually going to pick up on that form of curriculum. And I think that the teacher at Ford River got the grant to work with the other schools to do that. But then the whole thing got coveted. To use make up a verb. I just see this as a potential sinkhole for the moment, unless we really are not in a rush to get this moved along. I got the feeling that this is something that Paul, perhaps Lynn felt we really need to get this in some format. Going forward, we can always play with it later. The way it's written at the moment, it seems to suggest that any resident can sign it. But you must be 18 years of age or older for it to actually count to whether there'll actually be a public meeting. I'm perfectly comfortable with that, but I may be alone in that feeling. I'm sorry. Yeah, I want to just point out that whatever we do needs to incorporate the legal review. And it does not need to be quote a signature or a wet signature. It all it needs to be is a name. It can be done electronically, which is what the recent one does. I think we need to try and draft a rule of procedure. That would. I'm sorry, Mandy would incorporate. The proposed format. Whatever that's going to try and tackle that. So basically you're suggesting we should pay attention to this then turn to the issue later on of 18. Yes. I'm sorry, I can make this bigger. No, I had already minimized things. I can. Yeah. That's what I'm suggesting. Yeah. I agree as much as I, I want us for the purpose of. You know, supporting education and democracy. To think about the other, but I want to make sure we get this one done. And I, the reason I'm pushing it is because now that the schools. Have actually used the 200 signature thing. I think we're going to see this being used by other groups. Fair enough. It's, it's what it's there for. So. Try and change it into rules of procedure. Is that something you want to try to do right now or something? We're going to. Our next meeting. That next meeting is getting very interesting. Getting kind of full. Mandy Joe's walking away with a lot of assignments. She and I will reach out and maybe I can take some of this off her shoulders. But at the moment, I have absolutely no idea how we'd create a rule of procedure that would incorporate this. Document, but I certainly, I think I could. One attachment to our rules of procedure. So we can just have another. And help. But I've not until I see what the. Right. We understand. Yeah. Yeah. Basically, George's statement was that we're not going to count. Anybody can sign it, which is fine. I can go with that. But basically you said that you would not count. So if 150, 15 year olds. Assigned a petition along with 20. Residents of who were 18 or older. You would not have an open meeting. And I think that's inappropriate. And that's what I'm concerned about. That you're saying, Hey, they're just not going to count. We can, they can play. They can sign it, but it doesn't count. And it should count. And I'm not going to say anymore. Okay. If you're dealing straight with eight point one, you got to deal with what the. Charter says and what the state statutes are regarding voting age. We can't change voting ages. Our friends in North Hampton are discovering. It's not about changing voting ages. It is about allowing someone to sign this document who's under 18. And then. Counting them. As a resident who wants an open meeting. But we can't do that. I'm sorry. Andy, go ahead. Andy, I'm sorry. The charters, the block. And that's point, but the charters, the block. So. To have signatures. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry to have signatures for, I think that the point is that they have to invite people who are under 18. To sign a document and then tell them. You can sign it, but it's a meaningless signature. His slave on the face. Yeah. I think in the short term, we need to create something. And so for the next meeting. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Andy and perhaps working with me, what will produce a rule of procedure that. We then can. I don't know. Look at, and I don't really know. Yeah. Again, I still concerned about demands and staff time. I'm still concerned about the limitations that the charter imposes and state law imposes. And then think of ways that we can perhaps broadness over time. But right now. It's, it's, you know, there may be soon, there may be other groups that want to bring a public. Ask for public meeting. And they're going to ask us what the rules are and what's the procedure. And I think that we need to set that. And then we can come back and try and figure out how to expand it. If that's the desire of the committee. But that's what I'm thinking. And Mandy is going to be asked to. Perhaps working with me to produce an ROP. That would reflect the current situation. And if we can come to agreement on that, we can then forward this to Paul. And. And say this is the procedure that we are adopting. But. But that's just what I'm envisioning for the short term. Does the, do the rest of you want to wrestle with the, the issue of young, the young vote. As well at this point, or do you want to leave that for a moment and try and first is get the process. Settled. And then we can come back and revisit it. At some future date. I guess that's the question. I know Pat has spoken very eloquently on why she thinks that something we should wrestle with now. I am obviously reluctant to deal with it right now. I think it's just, it's too much actually. Can deal with it later as long as it actually comes up. And I know that you and Mandy are working on addressing it in some form, then I can let it go for today's meeting. So my suggestion is to get something on the books that complies with 8.1. And then when we bring that to the council. Maybe as part of that discussion, because if we're going to try and incorporate it into the rules, it'll be part of a rules discussion. Bring up the possibility of creating a new role. And that mirrors or mimics 8.1, but applies to residents that are, you know, younger than 18 as well as over 18, you know, so it wouldn't have to be just those under 18 that sign it. And, and see where the council stands on that. And if they want us to, if there's support for that within the council, and then we could come back to it in GOL if there is. I'm going to step away for a few minutes. I will be back to the meeting. Okay, fine. Andy, thank you. We need to bring this to a close, but we are still. We need to bring this to a close. We need to bring this to a close. We need to bring this to a close. Some comments or some issues that we haven't talked about yet. In terms of the actual. Notification time. And, you know, I'm not sure whether, you know, so. The signers of the petition should also be provided with some, with the time and location of the next open meeting. Notified. By the next meeting of residents. And I'm not sure what that, you know, what that really entail. I'm not sure what that really entail. But I'm not sure what that really entail. I'm not sure what that really entail. I think that the state that this is, you know, it's our obligation to do this. Which is obviously going to be a task for the staff. Why is it not sufficient that it be noted that it be posted or publicly made of it knowledgeable in the usual ways? Why is it that each individual person assigned this needs to be reached out to. And I think that it's very important to when it. Is going to be. Scheduled. Interesting question. And I, and again, I've. I've been trying to work in a supportive way for. The petitioners and the. School committee on how they move forward with this. And I don't have a good answer to be blunt. With every petition, there's usually someone or some group organizing. And I think it would be perfectly acceptable to ask that the organizers to make sure everybody is informed because they usually have the best email list. But I am certainly not I don't have a stock answer here I really don't. So, you know, if you had 500 people sign a petition, and you were saying you had to notify them all and you were going only by addresses, that's an expense. And somebody's got to take the take the responsibility on of doing that and who is going to take that responsibility on and so forth so I just don't know what to say here. I'll come up with a couple options my my thinking's varied on this. You know, if people go to the point of signing a petition like this and asking for a meeting in one sense yes they should pay attention to when that is but in another sense we have to admit that not everyone knows how to figure that out. You know, and, and direct notice to the people that actually were passionate enough to request this meeting themselves seems to make a lot of sense to me, despite the expense. There's a postcard, you know, 20 summer quarter 25 cents of a postcard you know it's not a huge expense. There's a time, a time commitment to it. But if we as a town are committed to public participation, it seems to make sense to notify people that requested a meeting that the meeting is happening and here's when it's happening and where. You know, on, on another level the way the charter deals with this for initiative and voter veto petitions is to designate the first 10 quote signatures because they require signatures in those in those sections I think it's the first 10 it might be the first 20 as the sort of petitioner group. And they're the ones that continue to get noticed so that's similar to what Lynn was saying on that side so we might have a couple of options but I don't like the option. Once Andy suggested it of no notification whatsoever. Well it's not no notification Mandy it is the usual forms of notifying which. No direct notification with no direct notification and I guess. Yeah, and I'm leaning against that, both in terms of demand on staff time and the cost, and also the sense that you know citizenship does require at least a minimal level of engagement. If you're taking the time to sign a petition, I don't think it's asking too much that you then seek out or find out, and there'll be many ways you also have elect to elected representatives in your district. And so there are many ways in which you can find out what happened and what's going on. And I'm just a little I guess my concern is on staff time and expense more staff time really, and also the expense. There are many avenues for people to, to find out and I think you know we should, you know, there's a certain level expectation of involvement as well. You know, if this something matters to you and we assume it does. It's not seems to be an unreasonable assumption that you would then make sure that you've become informed as to when this meeting will be held, and we're not hiding it. It's publicly we will announce it in all the various public forms that we do, and also the district representatives will be spreading it. I just am concerned about adding this extra layer of a cost and time. But that's a point I think we both have made so maybe we can move on. We've done as much as we can do here. Yeah, yeah, for the moment. And that's just for future consideration is the next we're skipping item agenda number five, agenda item number six actually time time manager timeline. And we're going to agenda item number seven. And I have Mandy has updated her does her work to this point I've updated mine. I think Mandy, in terms of what you put in there. I think you're perfectly free to go ahead and begin to act on those where, you know, let's reach out to the town manager. That's what I've done with my items I've reached out I haven't done all of them I've done three of them, but I've reached out to Paul on the first three items that I was assigned to. And so the legal review has been sent to the lawyer. The HR director has been sent a short memo via Paul, and I'm waiting to hear back from her. And I've been in touch with the with Nate Malloy through through Paul to deal with the housing housing forum issue or the. So, I guess all I want to say here is that that's in the, the most updated version which is probably not in your packet at the moment. Mandy's comments were in there I've just updated mine. I'm encouraging Mandy then move forward with what she has if she can. And to the rest of you, what I'd suggest is looking at the and I will send it to you individually. I think it's probably and also put it in the GOL folder but look at the most recent updated version. And see what you might be able to do in the next couple of weeks to to move on your items, which in many cases involves just reaching out to Paul, or you know what would be the action step. So Mandy and I have identified the action steps for our homework and we have initiate while I'm asking Mandy now initiate the actions. I've initiated three I still have three more to work on. March is our deadline. And so I don't know if people have any comments or thoughts on this other than me to encourage you if I so if I finally get to my review. Do you want me to bring a question to the group before I take any action. Good to do what Mandy and I've done which is sort of just state what you know the what the action is that that seems to be required for people to know about. But I'm not sure that there would be any objection to people sort of just going ahead and doing what's obvious. I don't know what the others think. I'm not really worried about anybody going off the reservation what I'm worried about is, you know, people having the time and the energy to just tackle their particular assignments so we can get this thing done by March. So I guess Lynn the short answer is I think you should just go ahead and do what you think is appropriate and just if you could enter that in the document. So, you know people can access the document and see what you're up to. But yeah, I'm looking for other people's thoughts on how to move I'll bring it to the group. Okay. And I will, I will do many of the actions that are referred to the town manager for town attorney review and stuff like that that are in my section. Right. I'll do that over the next couple weeks. Yeah. I'll just just pick away at it. I still have three I have to work on. And of course we're then we're waiting to hear back from Paul or from the town attorney or from the HR director or from, you know, it's going to take time. I need to put my three involved Dave Zomac I have reached out to him twice. Yeah, in fair detail and sent the document to him. You can look at it. And he has not responded to me so I need to add up as best I can. And then there was a third section that requires some drafting and probably has to ultimately go back to town council but I can attempt to do the draft on it. The ones with some act had to do with the agricultural commission or the conservation commission and those are both bodies that he is involved with and I think is, you know, I just really need to ratchet up the pressure on him. And I'm wondering if this is something again help me with that just the open meeting law and all the things that that I struggle to understand, maybe given the nature of this assignment. Can the chair work individually with each member and just sort of, you know, checking up on where they're at, and instead of taking up console our time, as we're doing now. I didn't hear you ask that question. Can I reach out to you individually. No, George, I didn't hear you ask that question. So I should shut up. Okay, I just asked my voice. Okay. All right. So, Andy, thank you. The, I have a question for the bylaw review committee. And that's Pat and Evan, and I will reach out to them in terms of because I have some things that when I look at my document. There's some comments from the bylaw review committee that I don't understand. Because that'll be my job. Okay, so keep on keeping on it'll be on the agenda every meeting, and I will be harassing you as much as I humanly can. Adoption of minutes, as people if people have another chance to read it they're not comfortable we can put this off the next meeting I've read them I'm happy with them. They're fine. If people are willing to go ahead. I will entertain a motion to accept the minutes for I don't even have the date in front of me I'm sorry. Anyone have the date. For January 6, 2021. Yes, so moved. Is there a second second the Angeles. Okay, any discussion. Okay, so I'm going to go to me to vote. The chair is a yes, Mandy. Yes. Matt. Yes, Andy. Stay abstained so the vote is for in favor known against one abstention to adopt the minutes for January. Six. I'm losing it. Okay. Items not anticipated. We have before us a resolution. Put that up. Thank you, Lynn. I would like us to take a look at it. We have about 15 minutes. Yeah. Yep, Pat. I have, I read carefully the, what came from Paul, and I haven't had a chance to talk to Mandy but I have a couple of changes that I would suggest. Okay, so let us get this document up in front of us. Okay. You have some changes you wish to make. Do you want to start? Yeah, go ahead. Okay. A very minor one under the 1234567th whereas a six whereas it should be President Donald J. Trump. That's very minor. But the next one. Well, let's let's make them each one of them. So if Lynn. Okay, sorry. Right here. That should, yeah, it has a D. When I printed out, okay. Okay, that's fine. I think she's trying to get rid of the comma maybe. Oh, no. It should be. Comma, right? Get rid of the comma. I have worked from a different version of the document. I apologize. I still will go with some of the things. And the next one is not in advance. I'm going to have to. I'm going to have to sit out. I completely worked on a different document except for the be it further resolved at the end, the second one. It seems to me that given that we, we should eliminate number two about the employees who were sworn to uphold the law because according to it seems, although there's not been a lawyer's definition that we don't have the right to get that information or it would be complicated to get that. And we're talking here only not about people who attended the demonstration but the people who participated in the actual attack on the capital. But I don't think, I guess if you're a police officer and in Amherst, and you participated in that and you're caught. I guess we could do something, but I don't think we can do something in advance. So you are suggesting that we that the item to be stricken. Yeah, Mandy, can you respond because I haven't had a chance to talk to you so. Yeah, I mean, I, I guess I'm not going to contest it. I just tried to write it so that it wasn't asking about attendance at the protests it was asking about people actually violated the law. It might be better to just strike it then to go through a debate on it on whether it's actionable or not. I think I would want to make clear, and maybe it's not in the resolution but when we talk about it on Monday at the council meeting. We as a town should not accept or employ people who in in in positions where they've sworn to uphold the laws of the Constitution, who then go and try to violate those exact laws. So that is a problem to create trust in our town, but I guess I will not contest deleting that section from this be it further resolved. Thanks. So so far the only change, we have a comma removed from one section, and we have deletion of item two. I'm sorry in that be it resolved clause. Are there any other changes that either the sponsors or members of the committee want to make in terms of just the language. I have one more about in the same be it further resolved. Paul made the comment that we were that we were calling on ourselves. Yes, I had this. Yeah, good. In other words, leaders it's not clear who who yes we're basically yeah so what what do you want to suggest. Well, go ahead Mandy. The intent was the town manager and the department heads. I believe. Right and the paragraph beforehand condemn the town council the paragraph beforehand has the town council condemning. The actions. There's another point though and that is that Paul and superintendent Morris. Did that very quickly so we're calling on them to do something that they already did and I find that very uncomfortable, which is really clear. But it is a problem I have my concern is that our police chief whose own employees and who himself has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has not condemned it in public. I mean we could call that one out but the enact practices is more than just police practices. Well, I am trying to walk the usual fine line between content and clarity in this case it's clarity and also action ability to some extent. As Andy points out this has already been done by two of our quote unquote municipal leaders. What is this document asking all department heads and because the town manager's already stated his position on this as has the school superintendent. So just from the point of view of clarity and action ability, who exactly are is this addressed to, and what exactly are they supposed to do. If they've already done it, then they've already participated in what this resolution is asking we're not asking them to do it again. But I think to carve out to. I mean they they wrote a resolution, which included the police chief police after George Floyd was killed. Yeah, the issue and yet we had another resolution condemning the same action, and we are calling on municipal leaders, and they've done it, the town manager and the school superintendent have done it but we haven't heard from other municipal leaders and town manager overseas. Yes, the other municipal leaders or yeah, I have a problem because I don't I can't support this as being actionable without legal opinion because I'm not sure the charter allows us to do this. People to do that. We're realizing the town manager to employ and set the rules and for the people that he hires, and I don't think that we can infringe upon his responsibilities. And therefore, without a legal opinion that says we can I think it's not actionable. Both one and two now or only part of that. Calling on our municipal leaders. So the whole be it further resolved. Yeah, the whole thing. Can I ask Andy. We just as a town council directed the manager to bring forth bylaw revisions. How is this different. What's the, but the way I'm hearing this is you want individual people who do not report to us to take, make these statements. And, and what I'm hearing from Andy is they don't report to us the only one that reports to us is Paul. So if we change it to call on the town manager to I know and two is important. And to affects the council as well because we're the people and act practices and policies. Well, I think my concern about two is not a matter of GOL. So I'm not going to speak on that, but I do think we have a question of just clarity and action ability related to municipal leaders. I take it you're not asking Guilford to issue a statement you're not asking Dave Zomac to issue a statement. I really do want to get clear on who you actually are asking. It seems you have a fixation on the chief of police. I'm going to put his put that particular individual in here. But then it runs into the question of does he does, you know, so I prefer that it be so we call in the town manager to one and two. That seems clear and seems actionable. He's already done one that's fine to will discuss in council. If you want to have others picked out. I think you need to actually name them. Yeah, I was trying to urge you not to do that but that's this that's gets beyond the level of. I think by naming anybody beyond the town manager, we get into whether or not this is actionable by the town council. Yeah. I'm trying to figure this out so I apologize. I feel like we call on the town manager and the leaders of public safety because we're, you know, I think the fire chief and the police chief should be condemning the actions of these insurrectionists whether I can force them to do that or not. We are asking the police chief, the police department to enact practices and behavior and policies to ensure. And I think they've already done that in Amherst. I think if I go back to some of the black lives matter demonstrations that happened there was no police presence. So are we, but I feel like it's a policy statement that's important. Or it's a request that's important. So again, I guess the question from GOL is this, do the sponsors wish to change the language beyond what we have now we have we call on the town manager, and then we have item one, we have stricken item two, and now item three becomes item two. Are they satisfied with that language or do they wish to change it. I can reluctantly live with it for now I don't know what I might do at the council meeting. I absolutely understand that this is just a man with GOL clarity consistency and action ability issue of clarity and actually building has been raised. The sponsors have heard it. It is their document ultimately. And it will be discussed in the council. I hope it won't take up a huge amount of time but it will be discussed. So, any other changes people wish to make. Anything else I missed the comma, I thought considering its source it was very well written. It's it's in the proper format. You've addressed the one concern I had about action ability and clarity. Any other concerns from members of the committee. Any other comments from members of the committee. And I'm prepared to entertain a motion to declare this resolution the 2021 resolution condemning the January 6 2021 insurrection to be clear consistent at this meeting. Thank you. As amended at this meeting. Thank you, Andy. That is correct. So I'm prepared to entertain that motion. I'll move it. Mandy has moved it as their second. Second. All right, Lynn has seconded. Any further discussion comments, concerns otherwise I'm moving directly to vote. I see no hands raised. Andy, I'm going to start with you. Yes. Lynn. Yes. Chair is a yes. Pat. Yes. Andy Joe. Yes. All right. So this is a motion to declare clear consistent actionable buys of the unanimous vote five to zero. I think we might make it. Thank you all for helping. Can I say something quickly? I'm sorry we're out of time folks. I want to apologize to the committee for sounding angry. When I was talking about age related stuff. My mute button was on because the phone had started ringing and I didn't know it was on. And I kept trying to talk and everybody was talking over me. So I got very frustrated. And that came to my voice. And then I saw my error corrected it. And I was able to speak. So I do want to apologize for the tone of my voice. Apology is appreciated and accepted. But Pat, I should have seen that you were muted. For instance, right now I can see that Mandy is muted. And I wasn't paying attention. I would have pointed it out to you. I'm sorry. I should have seen that. Nope. All right. So a future agenda items. The list is getting longer. Very important one. I'm sorry. Lynn. The resolution coming. I've already told you about it's not, I don't have it yet. Right. I didn't hear you. You don't have a solution coming. Regarding Chinese New Year. Yeah, right. It's on the list. Chinese New Year's here. I've already got it. Time manager timeline is on here. Biomass. Resolution. Little comment on that. It, you know, these come to me and then I don't hear from any, you know, so the sponsors don't reach out to me, blah, blah, blah. And then they reach out and say, are you going to consider it. At this meeting? So I don't know. I just got asked the other day. To be a sponsor. So sometimes the sponsors are not. The prick people. I don't know. I don't know. I just got asked the other day. To be a sponsor. So sometimes the sponsors are not the prick people. Who are driving it. I mean, so I apologize. I will try to remember. I will try to be more systematic. I have CC view on. Most of the people who said they sponsored. You both did fine. It's just that then the sponsors don't reach out to me. And, you know, I, you know, so. Anyway, I'm going to stop. They can come to the meeting, but I will always notify a sponsor. If their resolution is going to be discussed. And so I didn't reach out. Well, I only knew one name actually. It's your fault. Well, it usually is in the end. I've learned that. That's what I learned in teaching. Whenever things went wrong. In the end. And this is a very painful discovery. I don't know. It was my fault. So there you go. That's my word. Election of chair and vice chair. We will be dealing with that at the start. I assume with the meeting next time. We were just going to be the chair again. I didn't say that. And I didn't endorse that. That message was not endorsed by me. But. We will be doing that. We may have a new face or two. So. But there may only be one nomination for chair. All I'm telling you is there will be on the agenda, election of chair and vice chair. So be careful what you say. Chinese New Year. We're going to deal with rule of procedure 2.1. Election of officers. And again, if you don't have time for, you know, but I'm put that sounded for the moment. Who can sponsor a bylaw? I'll come up with something. Yeah. And you and I should talk so that maybe I can help you with some of this stuff. Anything else. We've got a whole list of things earlier, but I'm going to have to go through that and decide if we have time at all for any of that yet. But is there anything specific people that you're going to deal with other than those 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 items? Well, if you do, let me know in advance. But otherwise. I'm prepared to declare. This meeting. Public comment. Just mentioned that there's no. Sorry. I looked earlier. I don't see any public present. Um, anyone see, I don't see public present. No. So there is no need for public presence. No. Um, anyone see, I don't see public present. No. So there is no need for public comment, but thank you, Manny for reminding me. Um, Therefore we're done. Yeah. Yeah. Take care, everybody.