 I'm from coming in, but yeah, it is being recorded, but that's right. I'll come just to me. When is our next meeting for HRC? The 21st. Yes, the 21st. Okay. Yeah. So there are four people here. So it's either Philip twice or Tyler is coming in. Oh, there's an attendee. Oh, that's Tyler. Let me move him over to panelists. Okay, great. So Philip, you're also going to be here in July, right? Yeah, I'll be here for the July meeting. I'm having trouble letting go of the strings. A lot of people are. I think if the survival can find a way to keep you in the survival center, they can find a way to keep you remote. I think they would. Yeah. Cooking psychically. What happened? Yeah, exactly. So Tyler, can you hear us? Cause it says that you're okay. You just have your. All right. Yeah. Your video is off. Okay. Great. So we're all here. Welcome everybody. Thank you for coming. Purpose of the meeting is to deal with some bylaws here. And any type of revisions that we. Want to add in from the first time go around. And Pamela, is there a document that has. All three of our revisions or is there just individual visions going to the attorney? There is not a document where I've incorporated of the three. So I can do that following this meeting. So I thought the final document was the one Tyler said, sent because he said it's the up to date document. Tyler, is that inclusive of the comments? Or is it just your up to date? Um, it has. I read through your comments right before I wrote it. But that was from before I got Phillips. So that one was really just more, uh, my up to date. Okay. So I worked off of that one. Yeah, that's fine. We can work off of that one. I don't, I don't think I had too much changes on my end. I think one thing that I did. Yeah, I think that that will be a call for, um, For Paul and for the, uh, Uh, general counsel. And in the past the, um, Right. The human rights. I don't know if you added it, Tyler, was that when we refer to director on the bylaws? Yeah. I think it should just be added in. Um, DI director being that that's who it is. Yeah, I think that that will be a call for, um, Right. The human resources director was, yeah, it's, it's, it's someone that, that he generally, um, Names, but, um, and, um, Can I ask one question? I'm sorry to keep interrupting, but Tyler, I was just going to ask him, I, did you, um, was I included on the email that had, um, The most recent version? Cause I will bring that up. I'll look for it and bring it up. Yeah, I'm pretty sure. Yes. Um, Since I think I sent it to you a few months ago, and then I included it again in the email chain. Uh, like last month. Okay. I'm going to look for that now. I think. So on the question of. On the question of the director. The document says there shall be a human rights director, which we can remove if it's, and just reference the DEI director. And that's the time manager, you know, say, no, that's what's causing the confusion about the director. Right. And that's, that's what I think should happen to be honest. And I mean, I, I don't know if you have to talk to Paul on that one, Pamela or if you have to prove it, but I really do think that. So you're deleting section D, which says there shall be a human rights director and changing all the director to DEI director. And that's, well, I mean, it is you. Yeah, I, the way that I worded it on my end was there shall be a human rights director and then in quotations, the director who shall be appointed by the town manager, which is now the DEI director or director of DEI. And then from there, every time that director gets referred. It's just, and at least the way that I saw it written out would be the DEI director instead of just the director. Yes. I like that. So we've skipped a little bit here. Maybe we should go to the beginning. Right. Yes. Cause those definitions, I think we really need. I will say I am not in favor of the genetic. Right. I'm not either. I did send some alternatives in an attachment. Right. So what I did was to just pull out some definitions from various human rights documents. And the one I like best is from the office of the high commissioner for human rights, which says human rights are rights we have simply because we exist as human beings. They're not guaranteed by any state. These universal rights are inherent to us all regardless of nationality, sex, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, language, or any other status. They range from the most fundamental, the right to life. To those that make life worth living such as rights to food, education, work, health and liberty. That's the second of the three things I pulled out from just by looking at you and. You, you DHR and you and.org. That's what I was meaning when I said we should define it because the scope of human rights. That it covers this. Yeah. Yeah, my, my guess is that this definition was probably added when the Massachusetts amended their. They're protected classes to include gender identity and I, but that's a guess I don't, I don't know. You know, it's all included in this idea of human rights. Right. So I'm going to try and really a horrible typist, but I am going to try to cut and paste and add things as we go through from, from, from one document to the next. So let me. So I just, I sent an email just before the meeting with these definitions. Yep, I have it. Yeah. Yeah, Tyler, do you follow any type of way about. The genetic. Information or gender identity because. About genetic information. I think that I wrote something about it actually in one of the documents. I don't like it much and it's way too ambiguous. What exactly is pointing to, I do get the idea behind adding it, which is that like genetic information can be the basis for some sort of discrimination, but it also opens these whole can'ts of worms of what sort of factors are counting in that. And it could potentially cause issues medically, for example, because there's now a lot of talk about race based medicine because there's a tiny subset of conditions where it's medical treatment might differ between people with different genetic backgrounds, which usually tend to correlate with, I mean, like 23 and me is trying to create a whole medical offset of the company. So it's a really problematic thing to include. I think, and while not, it wouldn't be impossible to include it or wholly illogical, but it probably is more trouble than it's worth in my opinion. I think though with gender identity, we should add that in like gender identity and gender identity. And I think that's one of the U.N. definitions. I think the one on just the U.N. website is probably the most concise and easiest to work with. If we just added into that like gender identity and sexuality, in addition to that, any other status catch all then that probably should be like, good to go. So I'm sharing screen. Can you guys see the definition? Right. Okay. So. I like that definition. Ronnie, thank you for finding that on online. I felt comfortable with the human rights definition. Being added in there. Well, the definition, if you're citing the definition, it doesn't say gender identity. It says sex. Okay. Yeah. So if we want to say gender identity, it needs to be another line. Okay. We cannot, or we can say adapted from. Right. When we reference it then. You know. And I can, I can. And I obviously this will need to be cleaned up. So expect a lot of typos as I try to cut and paste as you go through. Yeah, there's one really interesting typo in here. I guess we'll get to it. So that. So that's the definition section. Okay. So that's the definition section. If there are more for definitions or are you. Now at no person shall be denied any rights guaranteed. Well, I think we're taking out. Genetic information. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I don't need all of that. So that's all. No person shall part simply. I think this one also has general information to that would be struck from that. I do notice that Philips version of it differed from my intent to just use marginalized identity groups. And then I had a list. And I think both. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know if it's relevant to the legal context of this particular commission or the bylaw. To this. To Amherst, I guess. Because it references the local Commonwealth or federal law, which I think is fine. But I don't know. I don't know what the definition of the definition of the. List. And I think both. Directions of just using a single terms refer to any group in listing off examples. Could work. Or we could go back and refer up to the human rights definition. But I don't know. Quick way to do that. So which, which definition are you, are you, are you? On, on what's currently listed as C. And which one might discriminate. Okay. Yeah. But I'm. I guess I'm confused by what. What part of that definition you want to change, or do you just want to make sure that the, that A and B are currently the human rights definition and this. Section. Now C, but will be B is identical. Well, I'm fine with it as it currently is. It's just Phillips version of it had a different phrasing. His phrasing left it as on the basis of the marginalized identity groups. Whereas mine, the one that's shown here has a list of groups upon which one might face discrimination. Okay. I'm okay going with the more specific. Like one that base discrimination, but I do think that if we are going to have the human rights definition that you bring up a good point Tyler, we should probably start from where it says regardless of nationality and then follow that format. Actually, I like having this as it is. I don't think there's a format problem. I honestly don't the only, because this is really referring to a different set of legal. Codes or whatever they're called different set of laws. And it's referring to laws versus. Like the UDHR, which is only an international convention, really it's not really a law. So I think it's important to state this in as its own category. I just, yeah, the only other thing I think is that maybe gender identity because it's here in the legal category doesn't need to be up in the other and the other can be the very overarching thing. And this can be more specifically what our laws apply us to. I don't know. But I don't want to take it out. I think it's strong as it is. I'd like to keep it. Well, this is a three. I will say this. Go ahead. I agree with you that the language here does refer to very specific state and federal laws. So there is a distinction between this section and the universal declaration, which is why I said I, I'm pretty sure that that definition around genetic identity. And genetic information was added after the state added those protections to their state law. So let me ask Philip and Tyler, you guys want to take this out and have just the one categories that it. And definition instead of A and B, you just want to have a and incorporate and leave it. No, I, I thought that what Philip was saying was that the language in a should be the language that's in B that the language should mirror each other. Right. I don't know what this is, but where it says like such as on B, how it starts out with sex, just make it start out with nationality from the human rights definition. And then from there on, all the classes. Okay. I think that it will have less power if we do that because to the reader, it's going to read like more of the same. But I see that it's stronger. It's stronger. I mean, I'm not sure what you're trying to do. I understand now, and I'm okay with it. If you and if Philip and Tyler agree, then I'm okay with it. I was told my. Tyler, are you still there? Yeah. Okay. All right. And Jen, can I, oh, I'm sorry to interrupt you, Tyler, but I'm going to ask Jen to make, to take notes because I'll have to go back. I mean, I'm, you know, just make sure that as. I do it. So be helpful if you just jot down things for me so that. So I'm withdrawing my objection. Yeah, I think with duplicating them, the big issue that I see with that is at the point of having this such as list of categories is that it's not exclusive. It's an inclusive list. And almost certainly like 10 years from now, there's going to be different phrasing for each of the categories or different categories entirely that we're not presently thinking of. And duplicating a list exactly almost gives more weight to that list since this is within a single bylaw of a single towns. I think like it basically a subsection of the town bylaws. I doubt that it really matters that much, but all the same. I think that when we have set different lists within the same bylaw, it does kind of send the message that this very much is an inclusive and open list. But from a consistency standpoint and just the immediate usability and aesthetics of the bylaw duplicating the list could be beneficial, especially since what I haven't seen, I actually just tried to include as many conditions as I could reasonably think of to the point that gender and gender identity and expression are both listed in separate items. So, and I think also political and under opinion is redundant with religion. And then I don't know, there's a couple of others that are certainly redundant with each other. I think sex ends up redundant with multiple of them, at least onto the postdoc reading. But well, actually have race and ethnic origin. So yeah, there's definitely redundancies in the way that it's phrased right now. That's kind of what I'm a little bit more hesitant towards and to think it might somewhat dilute the power of the bylaw to have so many redundancies, but at the same time, it does unquestionably make it more comprehensive and pretty much guarantee that we capture everything. It's just not as readable. So I'm going to ask you, obviously we will adapt the document how you want to, but I do think that you should consider the distinction between the universal declaration of human rights and state and federal law. And there's a, there is a big difference. And so this section begins with, you know, person shall be denied rights guaranteed local Commonwealth or federal. And, and I, you know, I hate to say it, but I do believe that there are some things that are listed in the universal declaration of human rights that are not protected necessarily by local state or federal law. And so what would be the legal basis for the statute that we could point to that says that you have a right to food. You know, I'm just using that as an example. Right. So I might, my advice would be to, to, to, to leave it. You know, I can take out the genetic information, but my advice would be to leave it as is. I think maybe we should get rid of the redundancy between gender and gender identity. Yeah. I don't think we should get rid of the redundancy. Those since that one, I think it. A little bit. Excessively redundant, but well, actually you can have an association with an art. I really just listed every. I don't, I'm fine with leaving it as is. I just do think that from a usability standpoint, it might be beneficial to clean it up a little bit. Given that I think every single thing here is redundant with gender identity. I don't think we should get rid of the redundancy. I don't think we should get rid of the redundancy. Yeah. The question is whether our laws offer these protections or not, because that's what B is about. The second section about what's in the law. Right. Does the law offer protections for gender identity? I don't know. If it does, then it's there. If it doesn't. Then it cannot be in C. That's why we've got the first one. The second section of C is no person shall be denied rights on any ground such as with the list. So because that it's phrased under that construction, it's not really pointing to a specific law, but rather in itself is stating that the rights already guaranteed under local commonwealth or federal law shall be applied to every person within Amherst and not denied on any ground such basis. But denied on the basis of on the pursuant to local commonwealth or federal law, which is much more narrow than what the human rights declaration of human rights talks about. Yeah. So the protections in C would not cover stuff like the right to food or work or anything like that. Those C would not encompass that under its present construction. Unless the Supreme court goes and decides to completely approve the definition, which they could, especially over the course of a decade. But as of right now that protections in C would differ pretty broadly from the definition of human rights found in a. So I think by your own argument, Tyler, we should leave it as it is because it is, it really does refer very specifically to, to laws that are either state or federal. I think, and I also think that from a legal standpoint, although you might consider gender and gender identity redundant, there are probably state case laws that define them. And so they're not considered redundant. They probably have a legal definition and case law to explain them, which is why they're included this way. Yeah. Just for clarification, that section B and C that you're going to leave as is. Yeah, this section right here, we're going to leave. Yeah. So I'm going to scroll down. No changes to this or. Just the references to the director. Okay. I was wondering if we could move that up. And say what we discussed earlier before we say the director, we could move up so that C, before we say there shall be a human rights commission, there shall be a human rights director. And as Philip described what it should be. So then when you say director for the rest of it, it makes sense. Okay. All right. So. So. Oh, so this sentence here, right here. Yeah. Okay. You want to cut and. Put it above there shall be human rights commission. Okay. Above there should be. I think, I think. Well, I think. I understand the director, but I think the commission comes after the, the director comes after the, the commission. So I would add it. I would maybe add it to this sentence. Here, let's try it. I'm just going to try that. Okay. I think the thing about Phillips point was that it would describe, I don't know where's Phillip. He went off my screen, but he was saying something about clarifying that the director is the director. There was language that. I don't know, Phillip, if you still have it. Right. Yeah. After where it says. Who shall be appointed by town manager, which is now the D or the director of the. Okay. So, well, again, ignore the typos. So, and we know that we'll have to clean all this up. So. Yeah. I don't have any idea why that is. Font is so small. It's always too small. These screens are real challenge. I'm trying to point to it. I know you can't see it. So I'm sorry. Yeah. But if you go down in the right hand corner. Like, oh, you still, I'm circling it and you can't see it, but all the way down in the right hand corner of the. Screen. Of the, of the entire word document. Oh. Yep. And move that. Yeah, there you go. Yep. All right. Okay. It was at like 25%. So. Yeah. That's weird. So on my screen, of course, it's. It does. Yeah. It's always trying to figure out, you guys are really small on my screen. So I can have the document big. So. All right. So I just. There should be a human rights commission of nine Amherst residents, broadly representative of the community appointed to three year terms by the town manager. The commission shall advise the town, provide education and mediation to the community. There shall be a human rights director. The director shall be appointed by the town manager, which is now the director of the office of diversity, equity, and inclusion. But doesn't that sound like it's its own sentence? Which this, which. There, there shall be a human rights director. Just. Like, shouldn't that just be F. Yeah. I mean, it could be. So this sentence, which was part of E is now sort of hanging out there. This sentence, what that's one, it was actually continued with E. And then two and three all followed with E. Right. So maybe we should just go back to where the human rights director was. Cause I think it either has to go before the commission, or it has to come out to kind of seem, seems hard to put it in the middle. Or you can just hit undo. So I would actually just repeat the sentence. Because the repetition is not going to necessarily be. Oh, I copied the wrong thing. This is what happens when I am in charge of stuff. Okay. The commission shall advise. Yeah. That is one. Yeah. Okay. There should be a human rights commission. All right. There should be a human rights commission. The commission shall advise the town, provide education and mediation to the community. There shall be a human rights director who shall be appointed by the town manager, which is now the director of the office of diversity, equity, inclusion. The commission shall review all matters brought to its attention by the director. And then the rest of the, of the language would stay as it was. Okay. Okay. Okay. Next. Then moving on to. Which is the old section D. What is the new section now. Okay. So I need to go back to Tyler's document. Or no, this is. Right. So. Is this the new section? This doesn't. Yeah. It's the next section. Okay. This was under section D before. Was under the. What the director would do. Right. Right. So. You can just make it another section and say the director shall enforce the director shall blah, blah, blah. Right. Yeah. And then in conjunction. In conjugation really sounds so weird. Yeah. In conjunction with the commission. Oh yeah. Conjugation. I think that's a great error. I think it might have just let. Spell check automatically fill it out for me. Yeah. Yeah. Was that you, Tyler? Yeah. Never trust the spell check. Right. Yeah. For real. In this section, I. I think. Something should be added in and I don't have language for it. For others interpretation of what they want to add in, but that. The director shall. Summarize or share. Complaints with. Either the chair or co-chairs. From the findings of complaints through the town. I think that's an important piece to add into the. It's there already. It's there. Look at the bottom of that paragraph. It says the director shall enforce the director shall. Look at the bottom of that paragraph. It says the director shall inform the chair and vice chair or co-chairs of the commission of all complaints against. This is only the town manager in town council. You are right. Yeah, it's not. And it's just informing. It's not. Sharing summarizations of the complaints. Right. So it's like. Good point. Yeah. So that's another point. Yes. Right. So I'm going to actually create. Does it need to read so specific to the town manager and town council? When. I think it does because where it goes is different for the town manager and for the town council. The town manager's complaint is referred to the town council, but it can. Plaint of the town council. Has to go somewhere else. Right. Yeah. I think that's a good point. Yeah. I think that's a good point. It's reported to a government agents governmental agency. Having jurisdiction. Yeah. You have to figure that out first. Okay. So. I think that sentence. Cleaned up a little bit, Phillip with addressed your. The director shall inform the chair and vice chair or co-chairs of the commission of all complaints. So here's the. A written summary. Well, that was just going to say, here's the thinking about. About a written summary. If we, if a. A written summary will create a public record. That would be. So you won't be able to protect the privacy of the individual. I think there's very little. Chance of protecting privacy. Any way, but definitely if there's a written document. There will be no privacy. Well, I mean, I guess. Why couldn't you just. I mean, so other outside of knowing the scenario, maybe. You wouldn't, you just redact the other information. Like the individual's name. We still have the right to redact specific information. That's true. I'm okay with leaving the vagueness of provide a summary and the director and co-chairs at the time can decide how that summary is given. No, I make sense. Yeah. So I have a sort of a question related to this. So is the idea that when there's a complaint. The commission won't necessarily commission members won't necessarily know even that there's been a complaint. It will only be the co-chairs of the human rights commission who would know. Yeah, that's been the current. I mean, is that written in stone? Jen. I'm thinking if there's a member of the commission who has expertise. In the subject matter of the complaint, then it would seem like that's a resource we're not using. Why have a commission then. Well, I mean, I think that's been something that's come up. And so if you recall, when these bylaws were made, we were meeting in person. So then you're expecting the person who's filing the complaint to come towards the entire commission. But as far as you know, the complaint. The person being complained about could be at that meeting. Right. Do you understand what I'm saying? Because it's an open meeting. Because it's an open meeting. Yeah. Yeah. I know. I understand that's why I'm explaining it. So all this really is, is like, you know, we meet differently, but there's a possibility that we might go back to meeting in person again and not be meeting on online. So you have to figure out, and when we're meeting online, these are recorded meetings. So either way. You know, someone has the right to, to see this. So if, if we were all at an HRC meeting and somebody wanted to bring a complaint, that just seems like something that would be uncomfortable. No, sorry. That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that in this phase where info, you know, the complaint is going to DEI that directors, the one who's really managing the complaint, right? Then that complain, that person is working with the co-chairs in some way, including at the end. Yeah. I'm just wondering why it's only the co-chairs because especially, I'm thinking of one new member who has tremendous expertise. It sounds like in human rights and it would be a shame if she weren't a co-chair for her not to be drawn upon as a resource. Well, I don't know that she wouldn't necessarily be able to be drawn upon a resource, but it's, we're saying here that it's confidential to only the co-chairs. That's why I'm questioning whether we should add something like that, that the DEI director, that the director shall draw upon any resource within the HRC or something like that. It just seems a shame to narrow it to these positions called chairs when the commission is rich with different kinds of expertise. No, I understand what you're saying. And I don't, I think from my perspective, I, if, if I felt like there was somebody in the, in the, so if there was a complaint and we needed to talk to the police chief, but the complaint wasn't about him, but we wanted his expertise. We would just call the chief. I don't understand why we wouldn't just call on the member as an, as an individual. I don't think you could under these bylaws because it says that the only person that the director shall deal with is really the chairs. I don't think it harms it to add it in to. Subsection to add in, like anybody for their expertise can be called upon. As far as complaints going. It's more of a, I would rather, I would rather make it clear that they, you can call on whoever you want on the commission. I don't know if there are though, but Phillip, I don't know. What do you think having sat on these things for a while? I mean, I don't think it harms it to add it in to. It's more of a. It's other members of. It's other members of the HRC may be called upon. By the director as appropriate or something. Yeah. And I think too, Jen's point, I. At least this current team and obviously we need to think about future. People and whoever holds a position. That's, that's not an issue. I find with, with Jen and Pamela. Anyways. But I think it's a good point. I mean, if I'm coming with a complaint about somebody to the commission, and that person happens to be sitting there listening. You know, but the complaint isn't coming to them. We're not saying the complaint should come to the commission. We're just saying that in the, that the director should be able to call on the expertise of the commission. Yeah. Is that okay with you, Jen? I'm just curious what you're thinking. You're muted. Oh. I. I, so for me, I still like to me, it doesn't say you can or cannot do that. So, so Phillips point, it doesn't hurt to add that in there. I would have just done that anyways personally because it doesn't say that I can't. It doesn't say that I can, but it doesn't say that I can't. Right. No. I think it's good. I think it's good for these types of documents to think far into the future of when, you know, some of us are no longer a part of the team and that way it's written in there for. People that can then refer back and be like, oh, you can utilize this. Okay. So is that clause? Okay. Utilize any member of the human rights commission with subject matter expertise. And provide a summary of the final outcome. Okay. This is section D seven. Is that correct? I got a little bit confused with where the numbers were. Yeah. Yeah, I think it will be D six. I think we'll have to clean it up a little bit, but it will. I think under provide a summary of the final outcomes. Is that going to the whole commission? Cause I think that's the way that it reads right now. Okay. Okay. Well, the whole commission doesn't know about it. So. Right. It's not going to the whole commission commission unless we decide that the whole commission needs to know, but nine people is a lot of people in a small town. Right. I guess I'm okay. Not knowing. Right. And that's why I'm just saying to have some clarity on the, the center there. Yeah. I think that's all I had for. That's actually if anybody had anybody, anything else. So, but don't you think like, and hopefully this makes sense. So the way that we were doing it before is like quarterly in theory, we would give a report to the HRC. To the whole entire commission because. You could exclude whatever information. So you could make it as general as saying, there were four complaints from. About the Jones library. There were three complaints about. Whatever that way, if there were like eight complaints of regarding one area in a small timeframe, then that is an indicator to the HRC that they really need to maybe look into something there, or maybe that's just limited to the co-chairs and the chairs. Does that make sense? Yes. Yeah. I think the co-chairs would always have the ability to, to bring. The information before the whole commission. And I, because I'm assuming. That at some point there, we would be writing. A summary, just as you've described for the final HRC report, the annual report has to have some, you know, small two or three sentence description of, of, of the actions that have come in. So I think you can still achieve what you want with the text as it's written. So. I think what I was, what I was seeing on some other towns bylaws, and thank you Pamela for sending that out was there was language that signaled initial, like. Initiate an investigation. In that way. And I think that that is important, especially for the HRC is that that's kind of what this is all doing, right? Is that through all these complaints, it really is almost an initial investigation to then guide someone to go to. Like the federal level of dealing with the disability. Complaint or. Complaint against race or gender identity. So I don't know if that's in this document right now that. Tyler has written, but. I feel like. Being more specific, like we talked about Pamela, what the expectations are. Right. What you're going to get from an HRC complaint, because I think that is not so relatively known right now. I think a lot of people think that we have a lot more power. Right. Actually do. Yeah. So I actually think that that should. This should come into this next section. Because there aren't any procedures. That are established. And I don't. I can send out to you guys the. Document that I. Drafted like last fall, but I think. You know, leaving this section in as, as it is, is probably okay. But I think that there should be a recommendation that certain specific procedures be established. Right. And that would not only. You know, help clarify what authority the commission has, but also set some time limits for when things are done. I mean. General practices 60 to 90 days to from start to finish would be a good. Time frame, depending on the complexity of. You know, of a case that if you were able to have a complaint in and then respond, you know, obviously you're going to respond to that. But I think that if you were able to have a complaint, you know, if you succeeded in 90 day time frame. Come up with whatever. Solution resolution advice or recommendation. So that there's an end process and things just. You know, don't languish, which unfortunately with my illness, they did like wish on one case in particular. So then are you suggesting to add in a procedure? Right. Yeah. Yeah. So I remember seeing that from last fall, I did. Suggest some procedures that might be adopted. They'll have to be adopted by approved by the town manager. And then adopted by the commission. I remember seeing that and cut the one time that I made comments. I think that were procedures and they're quite detailed ones. Right. Yeah. So that's what I think is. And I can. You know, I can, we could, I can follow up. And send you a clean copy of the document after we've gone through it with some suggested procedures. So that you could see, see them both. I could probably. Get that to you. I'm going to say sometime next mid next week. Just the procedures that you already gave us, or are there going to be new ones? No, I think there would. I think there are basically the procedures that I already gave you. But as a commission. You would. When you meet on the 21st, you'd have to, you know, basically discuss them and adopt them. And we, then they would need to go to the town manager. For approval. Okay. And I, and so, and this is where things get a little tricky. So when we were talking about, you know, this section that talks about the public records law, right against self-incrimination and right to due process. So I can just give you an example of how we've been handling the cases. And I think the procedure really reflects, reflects this is that generally when a complaint comes in, Jen and I will meet with a person who's filed the complaint. And then we'll meet with any other interested party or any other people that we need to get information from. I generally then we'll draft up a summary of the statement from the various parties, send it to them for their review. So that if I've misinterpreted something or something is mistaken, they, they have an opportunity to correct. No, I said this and not that. But once those final statements come in, then we can make a recommendation about an action that we can take or some suggestion in when I was working as the furniture community college, one of the things that we used to require, and it's sort of required from the intake form is that the anybody filing a complaint submit their written statement, because then you have their own actual words about what the issue was. The intake forms are, are okay, but they don't provide a lot of detail. And so then it's left for Jennifer and I to meet with the complainant and write down all of that detail to really flush out the complaint. And we have to, you know, there's some back and forth. So I think that in most cases, you know, I think having a 90 day window from start to finish is very reasonable. We've had to five complaints this year, if I'm counting correctly, maybe six. Wow. Yeah. I think, yeah, I think it's six. Yeah, I think, yeah, I'm thinking sex. Yeah. So I had a comment on the number eight, which I'm not sure what you're talking about in conjunction with. And it's not about what you're talking about. It's really about presenting the language. It's a bureaucratic comment. I'm sorry to do this. But I feel like in documents like this, it's important to, I want this to link to the international broader human rights agenda. And so this is the thing that's really important. It's what you've written down, and I would say in addition, so where it says in establishing procedures, the director shall consider the privacy and other rights. I would say the director shall consider the human rights of the applicant, complainant and witnesses. And then in the next sentence, I would say the procedure shall also incorporate the rights to privacy, the rights against self-incrimination, blah, blah, blah. And that reference the laws. It's just sort of connecting it to the bigger human rights thing that we open the document. If you'd like, I can just email you my proposed text, and you can do what you want with it. I think that's up to you and Tyler. Tyler, I don't know if you're fine with that. Yeah, I'm okay with that. Okay. All right, send me the text and I'll put it. We'll just, I'm going to, I'm going to just put a little note in here. It doesn't change anything really except to link it back to the bigger, broader view of human rights, which is how I feel like we should see it as beyond the, what the American legal system has to offer, which is not enough protections in my view, but you know, anyway, that's it. Sorry, I was just going to say in there that maybe, and I know that it's with legal bureaucratic stuff that it wouldn't encompass the US, but the articles of declaration of human rights to be a great link in that area too. Actually, that was another general comment I had that we should somewhere in here have a link to the UDHR because those articles are so easy. Yeah. So I'm going to play devil's advocate for amendment and just say I think that linking it into the bylaw would probably not be a wise idea, but maybe there is a section where there could be references or some, so it's not some other supplementary materials or something. I don't, I, I'm, I'm concerned a little bit about the legality of linking the universal human rights declaration into the bylaw, but that can also be a question that I could pose to KP law. Yeah, I mean, if you can pose it, I think that'd be great, but I do want to say that we should look at the website and I think that that should for sure be on our website. Right. Right. Yeah. We can also put it down at the end as a reference or something like that. Right. Right. Yeah. It's there. I think in the reference section, in references section would be, would be appropriate and that you could certainly add it, I think to the, to the HRC website. So one suggestion that I have, and this will come with some of the proposals for the procedures is to make clear. More clear. What authority or lack there of the, we have to take actions. Because literally this is it, like, so I'm outside of a, of a town employee and I'm, and I miss, I'm, I'm saying town employee because I think the town manager could mandate. You know, someone, a staff member to participate. But we have no authority to mandate. Anyone from any of the private parties or businesses who might come before us to enter into. A conciliation conference. Yeah, I noticed that issue as well. I think we should have in addition to the. Mediating role in the, of a conciliatory process. We might want to also have a purely investigative system where. For example, under. I guess now it's 10 in the document if voluntary action is not forthcoming, then in addition to reporting the matter, forwarding the matter to another agency, the HRC itself probably could still while not compelling anyone to give testimony or anything that would go outside of the HRC's powers be able to still investigate the matter and comment upon it using, for example, publicly available information. So news articles reports by other. Consulting or investigating agencies and such and through voluntary cooperation of whichever parties to the situation wish to come before the HRC. Using those resources, the HRC probably could still comment, even though it wouldn't itself be able to resolve the issue in any way. And I think the value of that is a comment by the HRC and recommendations by the HRC could potentially be useful for other governmental agencies, especially like the education board or the town council or any future resident oversight board, even where the HRC wouldn't have been able to itself conduct any sort of reconciliatory process and HRC investigation using that publicly available and volunteered material and HRC suggestions could still prove much more useful than merely a report. So I'm going to say a couple of things to that. I don't know if there is really the manpower for the HRC to conduct investigations. And I think that the process that you just described, Phillip actually did this past year in response to the July 5th incident with the police, which was that here from and without any references to the bylaw here from any party who was willing to talk to the commission, have the commission discuss what they knew about the situation and then forward to the appropriate agency, you know, the thoughts and findings of the commission. I don't, I don't know if there's really the capacity for the commission to do an investigation. Investigation to me feels like a really, it carries a lot of weight and I don't know. Well, and not only that, I mean, this commission in our bylaws, like we don't have subpoena power. So it would be completely voluntary on anyone's end into your point, Tyler, getting information from public. And I mean, I'm not a full skeptic of news articles, but news article sometimes have their own way of interpreting information. And so I would be wary on having that as evidence if it's an investigation matter into that. I think that I would say that I liked the fact of the July 5th incident that we were able to speak publicly about it and open up a complaint from the agency to the PD. So I like, in my notes, I like wrote, keeping it big does have its benefits rather than getting fully into the field because I mean, I will be as honest as I want to be right now on that. There are certain individuals in town that I think if we start to narrow down what the power of the HRC is, we will get told. We don't have the right to do whatever it is that we're trying to do. One thing that would help me and maybe it's being new here. What, I mean, what kinds of complaints are we getting? So, yeah, so I can. The first complaint that we got was a former Amherst resident against a current resident who was the person's employer. And it was a very interesting and complex case, but as it turned out after we reviewed all of the documentations and informations submitted, that person had already adjudicated that case in the Superior Superior Court in the Trial Court. So there's not going to be anything more that we could do that the Trial Court hasn't already done. There have been two complaints against Amherst College for individuals who have received a no trespass notices from the college. And I've been told that it's the policy and practice of the college to issue a no trespass if they have an incident with anyone who's a non-student or non-employee. And on their website, there's actually language sort of indicating that that is the practice they have. I do think that that's problematic, but I don't know, you know, I don't think Amherst College is going to agree to come into a conciliatory conference to make changes to there. We've had one, two complaints against town departments. Am I missing anything, Jen? Is that? I would say that is it for this year. Yeah. But there are usually complaints against bigger entities. Right. Yeah. And that's why also to why I was saying about defining. The reality of what the complaint is going to do, right? For the Amherst College one. At the end of the day, the town of Amherst cannot tell Amherst College to change a policy. We could recommend. We can. We can tell them, but they're not going to do it. Right. Yeah. Yes. And so therefore then it becomes while. Like, here's another step higher up that you can go. Like legal wise, but that's, that's the most that we can do on that. Well, I mean, Go ahead. So I served on a noise control board and I know that noise. But I think it's not as, it's not as, it's not as, it's not as, it's not as, it's not as, it's not as, it's not as, isn't as big a thing as these kinds of violations, but we did have quasi judiciary authority. And it was not that difficult to convene three of us with the town's lawyer. Present. And people came, as you said, they have to come. Sometimes they came with a lawyer. Sometimes they came by themselves. They were required to go to court. To talk to a judge about the issue. It left our hands like we didn't follow up on it, but basically. I'm not sure what the, like, if there is a really serious violation, could we not pass it on to somebody else? I mean, does it just die like Amherst college says, okay, I don't accept that tough luck. That's it. So we, I think for. Oh, I'm sorry, Jennifer, I keep, go ahead and then I'll go. You can talk, you can say what, go ahead. And then I'll say. Yeah, it might answer some of her questions. Yeah. So for the. So the. With every complaint that we receive, we always provide the complainant with information about resources that actually could adjudicate their, their cases. And so I did forget one, the one I didn't mention was a complaint came in against the. Amherst regional school district. And, and when that complaint came in, I was out sick, but I said to Jennifer, tell the person right away, because there's not going to be anything that we can do about this, that they should go to the mass commission against discrimination. So there, they're always provided information about a place where they could actually get, you know, their case heard and adjudicated like someone could actually make it, make a decision that would be, you know, in their favor. And has the authority to do the things that we don't like, you know, we don't have quasi judicial. We don't have an investigator or a subpoena power. So that's also. A possibility with the Amherst college. Complaints. I've, I've had a preliminary conversation with Paul about it because it's, it is a little bit problematic because there seems to be a pattern. I did talk to chief Livingstone about the situation. He gave me some background. And I am going to be meeting with their, I'm spuds person who happens to be a former colleague of mine. So I'll have a chance informally to sort of address it, but you know, directly, I don't, I just, there's, you know, I could send a letter over to the president or the chief of police of Amherst college and then it would go into the round filing container. Yeah. There's no way to, you know, mandate. And we're trying to really make sure that we keep a good relationship with them, right? Be good partners. So I am hoping that we can address it, but through informal means. I was just going to say that. Even though we don't have any power to make anybody necessarily do anything or change what they're doing. Some, for the most part. There has been some kind of change, except for maybe recently, but so last year we had one person who complained. About Amherst college, right? It's a very similar situation. But there was like a, a sign that wasn't defined that it was no trespassing. And so what the result of that was that they changed the sign, right? Which is what needed to happen. And then so there was a complaint with Craig stores before last year about. The way that they were being treated and individuals being treated. And then that individual was told to refer to the policies, but they didn't have any policies. So then we called and then all of a sudden they had policies, right? So they're sometimes there can, we do have some kind of like movement. I would say with Amherst college though, like that's, it's pretty serious. If anybody does anything, one thing wrong there and is trespassed for life. And so I would say for something like that, that is exactly something that the entire board could think about. Like, I mean, maybe you can't do anything, but it's worth the, it's, it's worth somebody doing something consistently. Cause that's pretty harsh. They don't have to necessarily become an employee or anything like that. But to be banned from the property, which Amherst college has a lot of property. That's not necessarily have like a building on it that belongs to, you know, like a, like a school building is, cause they have that whole part of graph park, right? That whole path area behind graph park belongs to college. It does. That's, I found that out from that complaint, right? So there's a lot of land that person's trespassed from that whole entire area for the rest of their life. And so they're, you know, it's worth somebody like at some point, and I know that we are, but I, you know, it seems like you could make some noise at least put a little bit of pressure and maybe they won't budge, but at least you have the notion that you tried. Well, and that's, I think the importance too of the HRC also is that right? We do have human rights commission in our name. I think once we start knocking on some doors to your point, Jennifer, people all of a sudden are like, Oh, someone's paid attention. And that is what I try and convey to town residents when they do come up to me with different things. And I go, Oh, like, if you do a complaint, this is what will happen. Sometimes it is, you know, that attention that gets it moving. And I think that was relevant in the July 5th incident. You know, once we filed the complaint, then all of a sudden town councils having a meeting about it and CSS2C is getting involved in different things like that. So it does have its power in name. Okay. So I'm going to just scroll down. So that was just a list of all of the other agencies that were involved in the complaint. And I'm going to go back to that. So I'm going to go back to that. Cases could be referred to. I don't, I don't have anything else running or failure. I had just one small question. The reference to the 10 days, like after the resolution is done. Why does it take 10 days to notify the complainant? Oh, where, where. It's E under. Oh, we're not there yet. Sorry. I thought it was this E. Yeah, I'm okay with this section. I think it's just a standard practice or just, just to give people time. It's 10 working days. So it gives them. Two weeks. And then at the end of one, it says the commission may issue orders consistent with its findings during the mediation process. I was wondering what that's about. So this commission's not involved. Right. This, I don't think I wrote, Tyler, did you write this section? I only added in the two years thing. I think all of the rest of it. Well, I can't, it's looking at the end as well, but I think the rest of it came out of the retreat packet, which had this section. As proposed procedures. That was so long ago. I've even forgotten about it. Oh, so this. Okay. I just didn't understand. Right. So I think this sample complaint. This complaint resolution. Procedures. Were procedures that are used by the town of Arlington. I think when I, when I looked at it in the fall, like they, they had a good plan and that seemed to be the one. That I suggested. So I just didn't understand it. What? So you changed it from six months to two years, Tyler. Yeah. And I do think it really should be on the longer side there. Just. Because it's, um, I mean, not everyone knows about the human rights commission. It is a complaint procedures and some of the stuff that we have heard about in the past, I think, especially with the school district has been a traumatic and the sort of thing that you would expect someone to take some time to recover from and not to start worrying about writing complaints and going through various commissions against discrimination going through core systems and trying to get. Trying to get committees like, you know, And I don't really want to see anyone with a serious complaint blocked from pursuing either reconciliation or at least some action on it through the HRC, simply because of a statute of limitations. So, um, I don't really want to see anyone with a serious complaint blocked from pursuing either reconciliation or at least some action on it through the HRC, but I don't want to see anyone with a serious complaint. So, um, And I, you know, I'm again, I'm going to play devil's advocate because this is the document that you're creating for the commission. But if you have a timeframe that is beyond the statute of limitations, there is actually no, um, access to the court system. If the person comes to us after that timeframe. So. Um, I don't know if that's the best case in the world. Um, but we couldn't refer you to anyone because you've already missed your statute of limitations on the state side. And for some actions, like the ones that your suggestion, like the, there are some, um, some statutes that have been, uh, the statute of the limitations has been, uh, eliminated in some cases where there's been, you know, a number of cases that have been extended. But, um, outside of those types of cases. If you, if we did this as you suggested, then if someone came to us outside of the six month period. And this might be sufficient for some people. The most we could do would be to ask the person. The responded to come in for a conference, but we can't mandate that they come in. And then we can't have other recourse for the complainant because they've missed the statute of limitations. I think though that six months is probably well within the statute of limitations of. Probably, I mean, I guess it would vary based on the complaint, but probably a huge chunk of the complaints that we've received. Uh, at least where they are applicable to the. Court systems. And even so, I do think that there's inherent value to having, uh, that reconciliation process be available and to having the potential that even though the HRC might not really be able to investigate or even make recommendations on every complaint before it, at least having a chance at the HRC might be able to do that. I think if we have a more restrictive. Period in our, um. Bylaws, it's something on the order of six months and we should at least have a mechanism to lengthen that period of grants and exception to it. Since especially in cases where the statute of limitations has not in fact expired after six months or two years for some of the more severe violations. We probably don't want to be limiting ourselves with that sort of deadline. Well, I, yeah, I think this is a, this is one where I'm, I would probably disagree. I think anything that's a very serious complaint where there would be an extension of a statute of limitation is probably going to be criminal and not going to be coming to the HRC. And, um, and most of the other, uh, protections that are awarded awarded under the state and federal law have a timeframe for, for bringing that complaint. And, um, I think that the six months is, is also mirrored by the, um, MCAD, but again, this is the document that you guys are proposing. So I'm just weighing in my two cents. I'm hearing both sides right now. And I think that there is some common ground in this being that if someone wanted to file a complaint outside of the statute, outside of the statute of limitation for legality reasons, I mean, wouldn't our then advice or mediation be that the purposes of, for legal, it seems as if it's outside of the scope of, um, limitation that they would have. So then therefore you could go and try and file something, but they're going to tell you you're outside of the scope and that would just be us then referring that information to someone. Cause I do reading it. I, I don't want residents to feel like no complaint shall be considered unless like that's to me at least strong wording. And if it is at the end of the day, like with other things, right? Like with the, um, Drake complaint that there is it's, or the school, it becomes that it's, it's not our jurisdiction. It's not anything we can necessarily do. Here's what we have for you. And if an individual took more than six months to come and complain, I mean, that's, that's nothing that we could do about it. So I hear the point of why to add it in, but also I guess I'm going to lean more towards that. I don't, I would argue then that we shouldn't have probably two years or anything. I mean, case in point someone comes like five years from now and wants to bring up something five years from now, it just becomes one of the things where it's like, oh, wow. You're kind of very late on your complaint here. There's not much we can do. And that's frustrating to hear, but it's a reality of the situation. I don't know Ronnie. Um, I saw that Jennifer has a hand up and then I'll go. Well, I was just thinking that sometimes. You know, I think that really varies on the complaint, right? And because sometimes it's as simple as, you know, I felt this way seven months ago or a year ago when I went into the Jones library, now I don't want to go in there, which we can still have a conversation with whomever. Right. So I, but I understand. So I guess I'm very similar to Phillip with both. I'm very torn about this because, you know, when I had an incident with the police, it took me, it took me a long time to talk to anybody about it. So, um, and it didn't matter that they couldn't, whether they could or could, couldn't do anything. It was just a matter of being able to say what happened. So I'm very divided about this kind of thing. Um, I wonder if there's some way to say that, you know, complaints. Not have that first sentence word and quite that way, no complaint shall be considered. But we could say complaints within, you know, whatever six months and the language would have to be improved. Can be referred. Mediated and referred. Complaints after six months. You know, something about after six months will be heard, but we may not be able to mediate. And refer because of the legal context in which we operate. Or something, or just not, you know, if we usually do refer, then it's, if we could say that after six months, we will not refer. I hate, I, I feel a bit like Tyler. I feel like that's the biggest thing that I've ever experienced. It really took me a lot. It took me a long time to even tell it to myself. So. Then we have to ask, is the human rights commission like this? Like what's our role? Is it our job to be listening to people who take. One year to come and tell you about something that there's nothing you can do about. I think it's helpful for us to know about it. And I think it's important for us to know about that. So when he was, and all his research conducted that somebody was, that really somebody felt so violated. They didn't, because they did consent. And they don't want to talk about it. I think it's important for us or somebody in government, somebody related to government to know about that. Because that. Then we may. Recommend policies not to our consent searches. But because that was a leap recommendation and then something that I advocate for, it's a case in point. So I'm sorry to prolong this discussion, but is there a way to do both? So I think I can try to think about how I might rephrase that. I think providing notice that if your complaint is filed within the six months that it might be mediated or referred to. MCAD is really important because folks need to know that they, they, there's a timeframe for their, you know, for their action to take place. And, and, and if there is, if they're beyond that, that, you know, the commission may be, maybe will is willing to listen to the complaint, but maybe limited and what response they have. So I'll try to work on that language. Yeah, I'd be content with that. Yeah, I just, I think to the point I, I lean with Tyler and Ronnie. I don't want anybody to feel like, Oh, I can't go to anybody. Yeah, because it's been seven months. Yeah. Right. Sometimes just hearing out someone, especially in the work that we do here at the survival center, like that's just all someone wants learnings and I would hate to take that away from someone. Just because then they read. Oh, I'm not here within six months. Okay, so I'll have to work on revising this section here, which I think is all about referral of cases to the MCAD. Yeah. I send that over to you right now to before I notice that I was on this document family. So you could ignore my email. Great. So, I think this is. Yeah, and then, you know, all of this is language, I think, again, that came from the Arlington town of Arlington to so, and I think it's this language here, which I have to, I'd have to go back and look at that. So the director shall not disclose the terms of mediation when the complainant has been disposed of in this manner, unless both parties agree to the disclosure, the commission may issue orders consistent with its findings under the mediation process. And this language was included to avoid the public records to create some privacy. So, it's good with where it is. If everybody else. Yeah. So, Tyler, you struck out, and I, this section. So, in the case of, of such a finding of a more serious nature, the commission may issue a private reprimand to the respondent. Receiving a private reprimand shall not be eligible for similar disposition for two years. Do you want to talk about why you struck that out? I think a good example of why this might not be a great section to have would be when that party might be a larger institution, for example, Amherst college with the Amherst police department or Jones library. I don't know where to enter a situation in which they were willing to participate in these mediation procedures which they likely, each one individually likely won't but it's definitely conceivable that one of those large entities that's frequently on the receiving end of these complaints might eventually at least for some period decided they're willing to participate in mediation and reconciliation. They likely receive a substantial volume of complaints just simply because of the amount that they do the scope of their activities, and it's fairly likely that they would get multiple separate complaints about different incidents within the span of two years of each that could potentially qualify for a binding of Amherst of a more serious nature under section 33. And I don't think that it really makes sense to preclude them from receiving multiple such reprimands within a short time frame of each other, if that was to be the case I don't, I mean, I don't really fully get the logic behind behind having it. And it seems like if someone does behavior that qualifies for private reprimand, then they should receive that reprimand seems somewhat unlikely that even for a large institution they would have multiple serious findings against them within two years of each other, but it's nonetheless possible and I don't know if it's a good idea to say that a second binding would be precluded a second reprimand would be precluded simply because of the existence of the first one. So I'm going to give you the argument for why I think it should stay in I think that the, the languages included so that if, if there is a violation with any entity, and they have an opportunity to correct their behavior and it's not made public. There's an incentive for them to continue in the correct behavior, if they know that they repeat the bad behavior, the second incident is going to be public. So, taking the sentence out really weakens the incentive for the bad actor to continue to on a good path because if, if they can always come and say oh give us a private reprimand, there's never any public disclosure of their bad acts. This says you get, you know, as they would say, you know, each dog gets one bite. This dog gets one bite. And then if there's a second incident, the, then the dog, you know, it's going to face trouble, or the dog's owner is going to face trouble. I see, I see Jennifer as a hand right up but I kind of read that as there wouldn't be a available replica or an available sanction that could be taken against the party for the next two years. But I think in that case, maybe it might be useful to clarify similar disposition and clarify that does not encompass public reprimands. I think similar disposition does encompass, well, similar disposition refers to private reprimand. Yeah. So you could say should not be eligible for, for two years. Jen, I'm sorry. No, that's okay. And I could be very well not reading this correctly because I don't, I, maybe I just needed to read the top but how does the commission I thought I'm a little bit confused as how the commission is doing anything, because not the whole body knows, right? I like I'm a little bit lost in that aspect of like the commission is making a reprimand. Who were they reprimanding, if not the entire, but I thought the entire commission doesn't necessarily know. So this language again was like a sample that was from the town of Arlington so we'd have to go back and clear it, clean it up to make it really match for the way in which the HRC is working with the director but it basically I think the director would have an investigation confer with the co-chairs and then, you know, based on their findings, there would be a suggestion for a private reprimand. And, and then they're, you know, that creates a record obviously for the commission they have that and then the same individual is back before the commission again, it's no longer a private reprimand the commission then makes a public statement about the actions of the commission. So basically, if this was being used currently, and so we've got two from Amherst College so the first time you wouldn't say anything out loud. Right. Did you reprimand them at all or I don't. I didn't but I mean. So I know really so, I mean, the, I think the goal is that there would be private conversation between the commission and whomever the bad actor is so it could be a letter it could be whatever I mean this obviously this was a sample so it needs some to be cleaned up but the idea is that if a person has been given sort of a private conversation about their actions and then they act again get a similar complaint so the Amherst College one is a perfect example. You wouldn't you would not remain private about it. But is that true if somebody complained about the PD because then that's something completely different because we don't have any anything with the PD and then it becomes like a personnel matter. So, so the, I don't know. I'm just trying to think of the different. Yeah, so I don't think I don't think that the police department is a good example because anything that happens to police officers has to be done according to collective bargaining. So let's sort of, let's take them off the table but let's, let's use an, and their collective bargaining agreement is very specific about discipline but let's use another town department. You know, building inspector, right, building inspectors, we get two complaints that there's been a problem with the building inspector. We might go through our investigation, come up with a solution, sit down with have a conciliatory conference, sit down with Dave and the building inspector, and that conversation might be private it won't because we're a public entity but And then when there's a second incident. So maybe another business might be a better than there's an opportunity for that to have that to have the admonishment be you know, to be public and the, the reprimand or the admonishment could be simply a statement like issued by the HRC that, you know, a notice to the press we've received five complaints in the last six months against blah blah blah for the following things. I guess I think that it's a tight line when we start talking about employees as versus other entities, because even with an building inspector that still ends up being in theory it should be a personnel matter. If something is so egregious that we, you know what I mean that we then HR should be involved and once HR is involved and that becomes a whole nother thing which we don't typically announce to people that we have personnel matters right. Well, we don't say what the punishment and theory was for the birth for the action so I am maybe as we go on further, like just, I feel like there needs to otherwise it just seems like and particularly honestly like a lot of people do want to feel like they have a place even though that Rob is not set up Rob is not set up yet so in the meantime, with people have complaints about the PD they're going to funnel them through us. I just, I feel like they're. Yeah, I know this is just a. Yeah, I think that this section. I mean, I don't think that thinking about the town department is a good example, but think about another business so. CVS you told me that that there have been lots that there have been several complaints or there were several complaints at one time against CVS. So, you might at the first CVS and they are private entity private corporation we can't really tell them what to do but we can issue the results of our investigation at the end of that investigation. I might say blah blah blah blah and it's a private report, but then when the second CVS complaint comes in, then there's this and it's just simply says there's no guarantee that if you act. If you have the same complaint within a two year period that there will be a private reprimand. I actually like this. And I don't think the fact that it's an HR matter should prevent it from being dealt with through the Human Rights Commission it should be recognized still as a human rights violation. I think these complexities have to be dealt with on a case by case basis, but the principle that's in the bylaws is that whatever you know bad thing we say about you whatever bad judgment we lay on you, that will be private only once. And that the next time it's not going to be private whatever it is, and whoever it's directed at. You know, I don't think the town should be exempt. I don't think the department should be exempt. We may not want to name a police officer, especially if that officer is acting in a way that's consistent with police policy but we can name the department. We can question police policy as being something that violates people's human rights. I like having this. Yeah, I don't disagree with it. I just want to make sure, like, it's important. Like when you're thinking about doing this, you have to try to make sure that all the boxes fit in there in some way and so maybe that's the exact way is that you just name the department as opposed to an individual and then that changes that. Right. The town shouldn't be exempt from it. And so you have to use it to some degree as an example because you have to be able to flush that out. But I, I don't necessarily disagree it. It's a good idea just wanted to wash it out a little bit, I guess, to make sure that it would fit. And then, yeah. Yeah. So I think I will try tomorrow is a tough day to do a turnaround because Jen and I have a couple Joe in the morning and then there's a staff picnic in the afternoon and there's one other document that I'm trying to get out tomorrow afternoon. But I think early next week I can try to send this back out to you guys cleaned up a bit with some of the suggestions that have been made and you can take a look before you know that would give you at least a week to look at it before the next HRC meeting. Okay, so I'll type up my little paragraph and send it to everyone after we finish right now before I forget what I was going to say. All right. So is that, is that do you need another meeting next week or is, or can we just circulate the proposed document at the HRC meeting that's coming up on the 21st. Yeah. I don't think we need an, I don't think we need another meeting but it would be good for us to look at it one more time by email before circulating it. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, that works with me. So my goal will be Monday or Tuesday of next week I'm only working a half day on Tuesday so but I will definitely get it to you before sometime early next week. I'm also going to try and finish up the state of the human rights to get that on the agenda for 2021. Okay. Yeah, so a Philip I did ask if there was anything that you needed from us for that report do you is there any section that you need us to write, or if you could write the complaint so I would be helpful actually. Okay. I don't have to read the emails. Okay, Ronnie. I'll connect with you just to, if you could help me with that I know we talked about at one point. Okay, so my, my goal will be to provide, like, basically just a short description of each of the, I think we're up to seven when I went through the last list now, I think of the seven complaints that we've received this year after I have, we have files so I can make sure that that's accurate. Yep. So it's not the last 12 months what it covers is this calendar year. Well, from its covers this fiscal year for the town so Jen since Jen and I started on July 5. And so from, so, June will be the end of the fiscal year and so during this, this year there's I think there's been six or seven complaints. All right, well I think we did good. Yeah, I just need to save my document. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Bye. Bye.