 All right, I'll call the meeting of the best extension city council to order there any agenda additions or changes Okay, don't need to approve the agenda any public to be heard For this meeting there's nobody here in the room We have one or two people on zoom is there any comments you have on Items that aren't on the agenda tonight for those in zoom land Carol you're muted Thank you I'm actually not Carol. I'm using my wife's computer. Okay, so I'm Sean folly resident of s-extinction and I Was interested in the discussion regarding the charter amendments So I have no other comments as as to anything else But I would like to weigh on on those so when that just one minute. We'll get right to it. Yeah, great All right, so we'll open the public hearing on the second public hearing and the proposed charter changes I don't know Regina if you want to say anything about them or Yeah, so this is a probably the At least the second if not the third meeting that we've talked about these changes In the packet there is a memo back from January 20th that describes the purpose of these Charter change amendments and I can bring them the actual amendments up on my screen just to review those again There are essentially Four draft amendments and these will be On The warning which is the only way I put them in the packet He's up. I'm what I checked your website for the charter amendments. I only saw three You said there's four Yeah, so let me scroll up a little bit here Second, okay, so there are Okay, they're this first one So there are two amendments to section 206 a and they are have two different purposes and so there's actually Will be four questions So the first question is about whether Adding this phrase of unless allowed by state statute to section 206 a Should be added and so we are adding that section to basically say That city council person could be employed if that's allowed by state statute Health officer is one of those positions that if we don't fill that position state statute Basically says the chair of the legislative body has to do that role So that's the that's the concept there and we were in that position in January. Yes, okay then the second change to 206 be that's proposed is that this Last sentence that exists there today is proposed to come out and that essentially Establishes a timeline of one year between a council member getting off the council and if they Want to seek employment for the city? Right now they'd have to weigh a whole year. So the proposal is to remove that Time period then the third question, which is article four Really is about the moderator. So currently the charter calls for the voters to elect the moderator on an annual basis and that person serves to moderate the annual meeting Because the city now is only voting by Australian ballot and we don't have any floor votes The suggestion is that the council can appoint the moderator and they would preside over the informational meeting not the voting day essentially Then the last charter change is Article 5 on the ballot and it addresses section 401 of the charter and Basically right now the charter calls for the voters to set the annual meeting by vote the whole year before we're going to actually have this meeting the suggestion is to Change this to by January of each year the council Shall identify that date of the next annual meeting and this can just provide some flexibility in the future if we're thinking about changing right now, I think the city appreciates the connection to the school vote and wants to keep that one vote time period for City residents, but if the school vote potentially moves potentially to town meeting day, then we would have flexibility of Figuring out if that is what the city wants to do as well. I think that's it. Great. Thank you. I Don't have anything unless anybody else has anything to add there. So can you I'm sorry. Can you repeat your name, sir? Yeah, my name is Sean Charlie. Okay. Yeah, Sean folly and I'm a resident of Essex Junction and As mine or is these changes might seem I'm just want to express that I am adamantly against all of them I know that might seem weird, but You know anytime you Apparently, you know, I get that there's no longer a Community meeting for town meeting and it's done by Australian ballot, but you will still have a moderator and Why not let people select the moderator? as well as when the community wants to collectively meet and Debate their issues Or vote on their issues if they're not going to have a normal town meeting Anytime you take a vote away from the residents the the constituency I think it's a step in the in in the back in the wrong direction backward step My understanding is that there are other towns that are looking at similar measures and Also probably looking at them from the same perspective whether it's sort of a housekeeping Mentality or whether it's just we want to make things more efficient Less hassle whatever whatever the motivation is There are other towns looking at it for similar reasons and probably looking at one another thinking. Oh, that's a good idea Let's do that It may seem like an isolated minor change here in Essex Junction but if other towns start doing it before you know it you kind of have a movement and the movement is Toward taking more votes away from the voters and I just don't think that's a healthy direction and I think all of you have to vote incredible amount of time and and Selfless selflessly Dedicate yourselves to this community and and running the town and I would think that you of all people would want to protect It's democratic nature of the process So I would Suggest and invite you to look at it from a different perspective Not like just what might work most efficiently what might work best for the council and the council members but What's going to support the democratic process as a whole and and be best and most healthy for the community in that regard I? Like I said before I think these are moving backward If you're looking at it from that perspective likewise Modifying streamlining reducing the conflict of interest Amendment why why would you do that? you know the Point of that amendment is embedded in its title conflict of interest prohibitions There's a reason why They put a one-year holding period for people and that's so that council members Are actually making decisions that are in the community's best interest not in what might be in their own best interest Come a short period of time when they potentially could leave the council and be you know working in another position We don't want council members making decisions that are in in their the interest of their The best interest of their position or their career or or even their salary And I think a one-year waiting period is a protective measure to Help dissuade and prohibit that and that's why it was put into place to begin with What's the motivation to make it easier for there to be a conflict of interest that makes absolutely no sense to me and You know revolving door syndrome can happen here in a small town just as well as can happen anywhere in any Form of government so you know I think I laud this the the amendment that was put in there and the reasons Why it was put in there and I don't see any reason to change it All right. Thank you. I would add let me just add one other point, please Again, you know the council may be looking at this from hey, what what makes everything just easier simpler And and this is just you know a one-off or an isolated thing but like I said if other towns start taking similar measures and Next year the the council goes well, you know that worked pretty well it was easier for us and What other things might we do to better streamline the process and make things more efficient and And you might start checking off a couple other areas where the voters don't need to or seemingly might not need to make the choice on a Minor issue or a and again and take other Votes away from the voter. So, you know If you're still looking at these types of things from that same perspective in a year's time What's to say? There's not more measures taken and more votes taken away from from the residents And again, like I said if other towns start doing this You then have a movement in a certain direction and I think it's the wrong direction And we can look back in our history at major shifts in our social Or political landscape and we could point to a certain time and say yep That was you know that had a huge impact in our society But what we don't see when we look back in time and what might be possible to actually illuminate is the 10 or 20 or 30 years of small seemingly minor incremental Changes that made that large shift possible and if the large shift is in a positive direction We might look back on that and say yeah, that was a that was a fight. Well fought and a and a and a victory Hard one, you know Good for us, but if but if those incremental changes are in the wrong direction in 20 or 30 years time We might regret the major shift that that occurs as a result of these small changes that are happening on town level and state level and Again, you know, I encourage you to look at this from a very different perspective than you're currently looking at it from and and I would encourage you to to not move forward on these amendments and I would Voice that I'm adamantly against it and I would Suggest that other voters be against it as well All right. Thank you I just want to give you some context very quickly though on The third and fourth which are the moderator and Date The date first we've identified a number of potential situations where planning a year out May not give us the flexibility we need As Our manager Regina Mahoney mentioned earlier We don't know right now. We're paired with the school. We don't know how that's going to pair How's that's going to play out in the long term? They decide to move their date and make it more efficient for Westford and town voters and go to town meeting day then we're Waiting a year or more sometimes two years for a charter change to occur to make this change The community overwhelmingly chose Australian ballot. It was last year the year before History is not good right now and I think that Provides us an opportunity for Reimagining how the informational portion of that process plays out. How can we bring more people in than the traditional 120 that attend annual meeting with the moderator What is that process look like since no decisions can be made there and only where we're looking at a process where we're now trying to Attract people to public hearings months before That annual hearing so once that annual meeting with the moderator occurs It's largely performative and informational if voters want to actually provide input in this new paradigm They need to show up at public hearings months before that So we're going to have an annual meeting in a few weeks a couple weeks three weeks And nothing can be changed at that point two weeks ago I think was the last time anybody could offer a request and it was last week. We did that. We did the warning last week So we're we're really trying to prepare ourselves to increase engagement and participation and Not have and frankly not have to have people come out a year in advance and commit to something where they don't know as Moderator what what that's going to be? And those are my reasons for doing it, but I just wanted to say that I do understand what you're saying and And I hear you I don't have to change your mind don't have to agree with each other But that's kind of part of where we're coming from on some of this as we start out we're noticing some of these things are Efficiency the wrong word not as well thought out one thing causing another that chain reaction is Is is causing some some change and the other last thing I'll put to that as a legislature really has to address how they're dealing with the requirement to have that informational meeting only 10 days before the vote because now we're mailing ballots sometimes a month in advance so again that informational meeting with the moderator is becoming Largely performative because many people will already have voted before that even occurs So we're in a situation where we have to figure out and have to have some flexibility in terms of how to how to get people to pay attention participate here their input feel heard and and have an opportunity to Get the information think about it then come back that the second or third public hearing and give us their thoughts on it So that's kind of that's kind of part of the processor I appreciate your time. Yeah, thank you. Can I comment to that? Sure? Yeah, I fully support the effort to to get more information out communicate community and better educate people regarding these issues and regarding what they're going to be voting on and whatever That may that process may look very different in the near future. I mean media is changing everything's changing how we exchange information is changing At the same time that there's going to be a moderator in place and the moderator has a role if even if you want to call it perfunctory and performative Why not let the voters choose that moderator? Unless I mean, how would that change? How would that change the whole information process that you've laid out? Well in my head it has a moderator agreeing to do something that they're not sure what They don't have an idea of what that's going to be a year hence So we're asking someone to step forward and run for moderator to be voted on and agree to do a job That may be completely different than what they imagined in advance And so it also provides an opportunity for more people to Participate as moderator because some people may be put off from being on a ballot we have numerous committees and Committee chairs some of them in our charter, you know development review board and planning commission and others Where the city council? Here's people come forward. We interview them. We select them. I Don't see it. I personally don't see it as being that different But I get your point in my head it's asking someone to plan and commit a year out without knowing the date and without Understanding what that role is going to actually look like But can't that role be be better defined and clarified? I mean if they're going to be say say you you're asking them to be involved earlier on in the process that could be part of the job description and so you know Moderators as as anybody know Things are changing and and so the idea that they should expect whatever moderator I apologize for that. That's my phone whatever moderator role they play would be identical to it What to what it was ten years ago? I don't think they would even expect that but I think that could all be taken care of through to you know clarity and and information and Job description as to what would be required of the moderator Gotcha, I think I think it's still doable. So that's yeah, well, thank you So is there anyone else in the zoom? I haven't looked at zoom in a few minutes anyone else that wants to add anything to this Before we close the public hearing going once voice All right, I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the board Any Discussion on the no, no, and there's no vote No, that was the public hearing I open the public hearing. Yep Public to be heard. There was nothing besides Wanted to comment on the public hearing. Yep All right, no vote on this because it's been right. Yes, okay We're approved as part of the Warning last Wednesday, and so they will be on the ballot. Okay We don't have anything in consent, there's no reading file and no executive session So I would entertain a motion adjourn. We'll adjourn second All those in favor say aye. Aye And we are adjourned