 Okay, and now I do the call. I'm calling the meeting of the governance organization legislation committee to order pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 and extended by chapter 22 and 107 of the acts of 2022. The meeting will be conducted by a remote means members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so via zoom or by telephone. No in person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access access and the proceedings in real time by a technological means. The meeting is being recorded on and I'm going to call on each member of the committee to make sure they can hear and be heard. So with that I'm going to call on Lynn greasmer. Present. Andy Joe Haneke. Present. Michelle Miller. Present. And Jennifer top. And I am present so. I'm getting started on my major in channel a nervous. Shannon, is here she was in the audience that just butter in. Okay, excellent Thank you, Shalina. I've asked Shalina as co-sponsor of the proposed special act to be here this morning and we've moved that to the first item on the agenda because she could be here at this time, where I'm also moving the agenda around a little bit. We'll look at very briefly get an update on the obstruction of public ways. And then we'll move into the Tibetan proclamation and the COVID-19 resolution that was added to your pack. Pack it late, but it's pretty clear. I'm not going to bring up the child abuse. We're going to postpone that till our next meeting because it's not due to be go out until April. So we're fine on that. I'd like to save the time. We'll do the adoption of the minutes. Then if there are public here, we will have public comment before we go into a beginning discussion on the rules of procedure, then we will have our discussion. But I have a feeling that most of the public comments I could be wrong will be about rules of procedure. So with that, I'm calling the meeting to order at 933. I think I should have done that in the first sentence. Okay. John and I, and I have been wrestling with this issue and I definitely want you to speak in a, we have the proposed act as you see it was written by Robert Richie, who was the town council at that time, you know, in the state of KP law. It has been used several times. We don't feel it needs to go to legal review. And it basically is asking permission for the state legislature for an extension of lawful permanent residents ability to vote in Amherst. And I don't think I need to we need to go into justification, unless there are questions about that. What we need to figure out is whether we need more language on a broad that up. We've, our original decision, and correct me if I'm wrong or misinterpreting channel a was that we would leave it as it is because we're going to be creating the bylaw. We don't have permission for the special act. And in that instance we want to make sure not only can people vote in municipal elections but they can be on town committees which I believe has already happened, and more importantly perhaps run for elected office or whether it's the school committee town council. So we want to extend all rights. So we're debating within ourselves whether we need language and we really would like your input or thoughts on that. Shalini. Yes, thank you for this opportunity. And thank you for inviting me. I did clarify on the town website was that if you are a registered border, then you're also allowed to run for election and I think that was the point that I was raising is that not only should they be allowed to vote but they should be allowed like, I was able to run for council so I think that is already exists. Okay, so are you there for saying you're fine with the language as is. I am. Okay, thank you, Shalini. Mandy. I have one question and then one one request regarding that that I think would, would alleviate some of our concerns. Or at least on his concerns that that deals with the word registered so I'll make that one first. I wonder if we could add the word registered you know on this fourth line on a list of voters established by the town clerk. If we add the word on a list of registered voters established by the town clerk. Just to be clear because and my reasoning is I worry that without the word in the special act, someone could challenge it and say, even if we put it in the bylaw we went beyond what the special act allowed, because the special act didn't say they would be registered voters they just be voters and the registered list is the state voting list say, you know that and this would at least potentially minimize that sort of argument from someone that says the municipal list isn't the registered voter list the state list is for purposes of whatever. The question I have is, there are a number of other communities that have sought special acts and so I'm curious how close our language here is to the language of other communities. Do they basically, you know, when I when Anna and I did the transfer fee, they're all over the place are the are these ones all over the place or, or are they all basically the same thing. Yeah, so we I looked at or we looked at Northampton in particular, and then I also looked up at Cambridge, and so the Northampton one does not mention a list. It just says and that's one way we could just get out of that whole problem is to get rid of the one line. Well, I think it would read fine if it said who reside in legal pumps are going back to what we have basically it would be legal for every resident non citizens who reside in Amos may upon application thereafter vote in any. Okay, so it'll be something like that. Okay, so the Northampton language is that for voting every resident of the city or in the case of an election for ward counselor award committee member every resident of the ward whether a citizen or a citizen who is not otherwise disqualified from voting under state law shall be qualified to vote in all preliminary elections special elections and regular city elections. So basically they're going by the negative like whereas we say like any all legal prominent residents non citizens, they have taken the opposite approach the negative which is that anyone who is not disqualified is allowed to vote. The other thing is that Wayland and several of the other commit towns with this, the language that we have here is basically the language that they also use so I feel really comfortable. I do feel like we should be adding the list of registered voters established that feels to me kind of important. You worked on this initially with us and do you have anything that you're thinking about or wanted to look at. I think thanks for asking pet. What Mandy had asked about other municipalities was going to be my question so you've answered that and otherwise I think keeping it simple is great and I have no further suggestions right now. Thank you though. Thank you. I believe then are there any other questions or issues that anyone wants to bring up about this otherwise we can take a vote on whether we can recommend this to the council as clear consistent and actionable Mandy. My question was just are we on a, are we just a clear consistent role consistent and actionable review or are we a substantive review to such that are it dependent that changes the motion. That's okay. Restate the motion with a substantive because we did that yes. When did you have a question before I do a motion. I'll make them. I'll move to recommend the town council adopt the proposed special act. An act authorizing extending local voting rights for lawful permanent residents residing in the city known as the town of Amherst as amended and declare and further declare it clear consistent and actionable. Second. Are you keeping this line here or not. Yes, you're keeping it. Yes, I'm sorry. Yes, we are. I think the only amendment is that registered edition. Did I read it slow enough Erica. Can you read that one more time. Sure. I moved to recommend the town council adopt the proposed special act. An act authorizing extending local voting rights for lawful permanent residents residing in the city known as the town of Amherst as amended and further to declare it clear consistent and actionable. Second to Angela's. Can I do that. All right. Thank you all and shall I thank you for joining us. I appreciate it very much. We have to vote Pat. Can I say something first. Can I just ask a clarifying question. Okay. I'm just wondering specifically and me. So the registered voters is the same as, because I'm looking at Cambridge city and they also have their names entered on a list of voters. Stablished by the elections commission for the city of Cambridge. So I'm just wondering that. Is that the same as registered voters. Okay. Okay. I'm going to start with Mandy Joe Hanneke. I. I'm an eye and Lynn. I. Okay, wonderful. Pass unanimously. Thank you very much. It will be on it will now be on the agenda for the 27th. That motion will include filing it with a legislature. And we have a really good support from Mindy and from Joe Cumberford. And we're also going to be combining our requests with other towns that are reapplying also so we hope that will move the legislature. All right, with that, I'm going to move to. Bye. Sorry. Thank you again. I'm going to ask if there's any update on the snow, the obstruction of public ways by law 34 formerly known as snow and ice. We have, we were hoping to hear back from get to get comments from the DPW. We have not, I have one small item, but if I'd love to know if anybody has any information, Mandy, you have not heard back yet. So we. You're muted Mandy, I'm trying to know I have not heard back from them and that assumes that then you haven't either since you were on that email where we requested so I sent it when I sent it to Pat I sent it to at. The request of Guilford to Guilford for DPW and he thought also Rob Mora, since Rob would be added to this and his department be added to it that he might want to see it so I sent it to both of them to asking that they respond to Pat with any requests and all. I did have a brief conversation with Guilford at the UMass event about this if you want me to summarize that. Yeah, that would be lovely. He wanted to see it, but he thought it was a good move basically to put, you know, he was okay with putting DPW on there. Let's just say that that he wasn't sure how it would work to actually write the non criminal dispositions. Since DPW tends not to write tickets, basically, but he thought it was a good idea and he also thought it was a good idea to add other obstructions he actually indicated that he thought it used to have obstructions other than snow and ice in it. And so he just wanted to see the language basically, but he seemed to when I summarize what we were trying to do agree with the purpose and the goals we were aiming for. Great. Thank you. So I'm going to ask for help here. Should we wait to hear anything more formal or do we want to take a vote on recommending this to the council. And Jennifer, you're muted. Yeah, you know, I usually don't use my talent computer and I'm starting to use it, and I've got mute button. Anyway, I understand from what maybe just said that Guilford wants to see it. Before we approve it. So he asked to see it. Yes. And so I sent it off to him we have not heard back from him so he has a copy of it. Yes, we just haven't heard back from him. But when I described the goals and what we were aiming for he expressed support for that but we haven't formally heard back from him after he's seen the actual language I drafted. I don't know so what do we think. So, Athena what do you think about whether we should wait or go forward with a vote and recommendation. That's a good question. I think it's probably a good idea to hear from Robin Guilford. But that could happen after GOL makes a recommendation we could ask them to look at it before the council looks at it so it's, I mean, if you want to wait and make a recommendation after you hear from them or if we want to make sure that what happens is okay with Robin Guilford before the council acts on it I think you could do that either way. Yeah, it sounds like we have tentatively an idea that they're saying yes this is good thing. I'd like to move forward because I was on the original bylaw review committee, and this has been going back now for years. And I think that the changes that have happened to this are really excellent changes. I would just like to go forward with whether or not we're recommending this as clear consistent and actionable Mandy is there anything else I should be saying in that. It would also be the substantive to adopt. Okay, or find the substantive review to. Okay, and because I'm nervous about doing this for the first time I'm going to ask you to pose the motion. This is the last one so it would be to recommend the town council adopt the revisions to general bylaw 3.40 snow and ice, comma renamed obstruction of public ways, and further to declare it clear consistent and actionable. Thank you. Is there a second second Miller, I also have a question if that's okay. Yes, of course. Yes, I do too so go ahead. So, I guess I'm just wondering because it is it does include more now and the title has been changed. Is there some way that we would want to alert, but how does the communication with the public happen in a circumstance like this. That's a really good question and it was brought up by a couple of different people I think that we need to we would need to announce it at public meetings and also that we would send out something via the town website. Is there anything else that we can do to notify the public, because now it's not just snow and ice which we're not seeing. But tree limbs and bushes and things like that. We could, you know, let our districts know that right in our district meetings and newsletters etc. Yeah. Is that how does that. Does that answer your question, Michelle. Yeah, those are all great ways definitely. If I may. Yes, please. Bylaw changes need to be posted on the town bulletin board for 14 days and then the council has to read them twice. So, Oh, good. Good. So we'll have an opportunity to hear from people during that time to as long as they look at the website so good idea to share with constituents as well. Thank you very much Lynn. Two questions. I should have raised this earlier. I am concerned about taking the word snow and ice out of the title and wondered if it should say snow, comma, ice, comma, and other obstructions of public way, so that if somebody's doing a word search the word snow and ice are still there. I saw Jennifer's thumb go up. Yeah. So can we do a quick consensus on that I would feel comfortable with that. Mandy anybody that's fine with me. Yeah, so thumbs ups is fine I believe. So okay so that passes that friendly amendment or whatever it is. I will get better at this. That's thank you Lynn. The only other thing I had was in number one be one. It will be treated in the very last sentence. It talks about treating sidewalk so treated with sand or otherwise. And that just bothered me. And but that's how the original bylaw was as well. So I was wondering whether or not we wanted to add salt or grit, which were things that are put on the sidewalk but I don't, I don't know if it's very important. And then Mandy. My question actually is when we'll bring this to the council but let's get the other questions answered. Okay. I didn't apply to that it was just for Athena, you change please change the title and the penalties for violations of that that yeah that part just to make it the same as the title. So sand salt grit or otherwise, we could do that I don't think it. Well if it's otherwise is correct it just awkward for me, we can just leave it alone. That's absolutely fine. Okay anything else. So, did we vote. Okay, so it's been moved and seconded so we're going to start with Michelle Miller. Okay, Jennifer. Hi. I'm an I win. Hi, and Mandy. Hi. So that passes unanimously. So my question is to Athena, it must be posted 14 days before the final vote of the council are 14 days. So we can take this up for the first time on the 27th, and the second time on March 6. Thank you, Mandy, Joe, you have your hand up. Mandy, you may speak. The chair recognizes you. That was a lingering hand. Okay. Thank you. All right, I'm going to move us into the Tibetan proclamation and right now I believe I'm listed as the only sponsor, but I am open for other counselors to join us just a minute, Lynn. Yes, I would also like to continue to be a sponsor as I have every year, and also mentioned that there will be an event on the 10th, which is the day, and hopefully counselors will be there to help read the proclamation. Yeah, it's a very moving, very simple ceremony but very moving so I encourage everyone to come. Is there anyone else here who would like to be a sponsor. I'm checking. Hold on. I thought shallowing perhaps was I, I'm, I'm, oops. I'm checking to see if I have any other. I, yes, I know shallowing is in the group. Okay. And Michelle, were you part of it last last year. I do believe I sponsored it last year, but I'm okay. But you're more than welcome to be on it, I think. I'm telling you as a sponsor as well. Yeah, is also a sponsor. Chalene. Yeah, that's it. Right. And the, what's the name of the group, the regional Tibetan Association of Massachusetts. Thank you. And the, the, the version you have has a question raised by Angela, who has worked very closely with this group. And did you make that larger. She wondered if we wanted to just eliminate this or do a substitute. And talked about cause and effect. One of the things that I feel very strongly is that it's, I don't feel comfortable, including the thermo Fisher scientific us companies include naming a company. I am, I don't want this removed. And I want to, I want to hear from other people as well as well because of what is happening and how this DNA collection is being used to control populations and move people and it's really targeting Buddhist monks and using it, they're saying it's a tool to fight crime, find missing people and ensure social stability, but without checks on police powers, they're really using this database in any way that they see fit. I strongly urge us to just remove the whole paragraph. Because the company's named. And because when you start getting into DNA and stuff, I just feel a little uncomfortable. Well, I, I don't know. Well, we're not doing this in a very orderly way before I speak again is there anyone else who wants to say something about this. Michelle, and then Mandy. Um, is so this was put in by the community sponsors is that yes that it was that right. Okay, and do we have anyone of the community? No, the community sponsors not here today. I wasn't able to reach him yesterday. But I was anything that we decide will I'll pass by him. I guess I was just wondering if we're doing a clear consistent and actionable, like we would normally do or if we're doing a substantive because it sounds more like I guess Lynn I would I'm just wondering if you wanted to remove it in terms of our clear consistent and actionable. Is it. Where does it fit in within that. I think that's a very good question and it really goes beyond that so it's. Okay, Mandy, Michelle, are you finished. Yes, I am Mandy and then Jennifer. Yeah, so it's kind of a combination of that I'll address this paragraph, particularly but I have some comments on the other stuff that could be considered both but they're just comments. Depending on what paragraph we're on but for this one, one of the consistency issues is that it's two sentences and our whereas clauses are generally kept one sentence so in that sense, we would be modifying it no matter what to combine into one sentence or delete a sentence or add it as a separate whereas clause or something because what we do in GL is keep each whereas to generally one sentence. I am not aware of a single proclamation where we've targeted or named specific companies in the past in general in this way. I don't think we've faced I'm not sure we faced that before though and so that I guess that goes to sort of our definitions of what is actionable or not, and I don't know whether that is. I don't think we've talked about that in GL when faced with something like that is to what to do with the naming of companies like in proclamations like this. I will say I am. I am concerned about the naming of a specific company without any proof or any inclusion of any, you know, we've had proclamations before Michelle you're aware of like the silo civil and ones where we were provided a huge amount of information that supports. What was in there we haven't been provided that so I just have some concerns about that but at a minimum. I think it is within GL's purview to combine them into one sentence. Jennifer. Yeah, I just, I feel uncomfortable and I felt this with the plant based medicine proclamation times that I just, this is the first I'm learning of this so I just don't feel, you know I just would need some more information. I just I don't know how to kind of respond I mean it maybe and likely is valid I just don't. I'm not coming from any kind of informed position on this. I did go on and look at citizen lab and get some information from them. But I'm, I'm hearing that there seems to be pretty much a consensus of not including that this year. Because, number one, removing the name of the company I think we all agree on that. The other thing is it does seem that the majority of people here are uncomfortable with it. And I would not oppose removing it. I think the some of the reasons cited have been good ones. Are you suggesting removing the whole thing. Yeah. Yeah, I believe Angela raised this because I, how many days are we allowed to fly any flag Athena do you know that. I thought it was 10 days. I don't think that's really changed has it. I don't think so. Yeah, we've flown flags for months at a time, I mean flag is still up in this one I don't know what we normally do whether it's just one day but this the 10 days was there last year. Yeah, and it, we flew it for more than one day. Yeah. So I think the 10 days works fine. I don't, I don't have any problem with this at all. And it's part of our celebration. And for the world's primary reason. Yeah. So do we need to take a formal vote on this or are we comfortable that we've reached a consensus in the committee about removing it. Okay. So, again, Mandy I'm going to ask you to pull up. I have other requested changes. Okay, let's go to those first. I'm not done with the whole thing. You're probably going to talk about the three that were taken out. So the third whereas clause is also two sentences last year's proclamation fixed that. So the, we have language from last year's proclamation that was signed into the reciprocal. So last year's proclamation that that whereas clause read on December 19, 2018, the reciprocal access to Tibet Act, parents sponsored by Representative Jim McGovern and parents was signed into law, comma, calling for an end to China's isolation of Tibet and providing American citizens, comma, including Tibetan Americans and Amherst, comma, with the same opportunity of access to Tibet as enjoyed by Chinese citizens visiting our country. Parent semi colon and so I know I read that too fast Athena. But it, that's how we reworded it. It's in the 2022. It is that way. Right. So if you just pull. Yeah. And that solves the two sentence issue there. And before that paragraph, or, and then there were three whereas clauses from last year removed and so I guess my question is to the sponsors. Why is that something the regional Tibetan Association asked to remove. All I know is that Angeles, we sent this to them. Angela spoke with them and they came back with the change as you see it. So whether they actually consulted with the regional Tibetan Association, I don't know but they generally are a consultative group. Yes, they are. But I think one of the reasons and I'm making an assumption here is that there, we don't know how it says over a million Tibetans have lost their lives in the past six decades, that number may be increased. But I would very much like to keep that the Chinese invasion has disrupted the culture of Tibetans, and also the snow line flag design, because it is a symbol of unity. And it's important. So I would like to add those two back. I can read them off again. But, you know, that's the question is, as sponsors you can do what you want. I'm not sure it's appropriate for us but Athena just put them up right of the three that were removed. Is that where they appeared in the last appeared after the. They came after one million. Yes, that's where they appeared last year. Thank you. And then my last comment is in the now therefores and the last whereas the last whereas is the same as last year's whereas. I'm surprised we didn't catch it last year that the sentence the members of the regional Tibetan Association seems more proper as a now therefore clause than as a whereas clause. We tend to put it in now therefore is not in whereas is it was in the where it this this whereas same as it was last year but it seems like we tend to move those flag raising ceremonies issues as now therefore is And I would move that now therefore to the second one. After the council after the first now therefore. And that now therefore this is a proclamation not a resolution so I think we should delete the be it here by resolve that right so it reads now therefore the town council the town of Amherst in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I think it's then recognizes the local Tibetan American communities plea for justice. So, in the first now therefore just remove be it here by resolve that. Yes. And, and continues to proclaim or not and continues so so there's a continue down the fourth line would be and continues to proclaim each March 10 as to bet day and further. We really didn't see that last year. No we didn't right and further recognizes the fourth fifth line. So this proclamation by raising the flag. Right. And further, I think it's further to pay tribute to the next the last paragraph would be a further, and further, or and further, instead of a now therefore it would be and further. So instead of that. Okay. So the tribute to the 154 self emulated. That would be a now say that again Mandy. No I think that I think it's right now. That would also be a now therefore. No it's it's appropriate right as it isn't as it is this way. No I'm confused because you talked about moving it below. It is below. I'm looking at my paper and not the screen. I'm so sorry. Yes. Okay. And Lynn are you comfortable with these changes. Yeah, and Jennifer I don't remember if you're a sponsor or Michelle. And I'm comfortable with these changes. And I will take the responsibility of contacting the president of the group to let them know that we've removed that one paragraph and why. Thank you for doing that pattern. Okay. Any other questions or concerns about this. I think you should also make sure that they know we added those three back into. Yeah. I'm going to figure out how to take this out after you. We trust you on that. And add our header. I'll add the town center. Yeah. Would someone make a motion to determine that this is. We are recommended this to the town council as clear, consistent and actionable. As amended. I can make one if you go ahead. Oh, I'm sorry, let me look at the title on my. I haven't pulled up. I thought I did. Oh goodness. If you go to the top, there you go, Michelle. It's right there. Thank you. Okay. To move to declare the 2023 Tibetan national uprising day proclamation clear, consistent and actionable. Is there a second second, but as amended. Excuse me. Yes, as amended. And, and I, a seconder, I agree with that. We still have to vote, Pat. This is your fault because you wouldn't weren't able to continue. All right. I'm going to start with Mandy Joe Hanneke because in the rotation I skipped her last time. Hi, Michelle. Hi, Jennifer. Hi. I'm an eye Lynn. Hi. And it's unanimous. The day could only go this way. Thank you. As I mentioned when we open the meeting, I'm not going to work on the child abuse. Proclamation right now. And we will take that up on our first meeting. Our next meeting, but I would like to move to the COVID remembrance day. Because it's time sensitive. Now, every, all the counselors receive this. In the, in your email. From Jennifer Ritz Sullivan, who is the COVID justice leader for Mark by COVID in Massachusetts. And I do you want that name again. Yeah, can you. I was just going to, to find the spelling. Okay. Jennifer Ritz RITZ. Sullivan. No hyphen. Is a COVID justice leader. For marked by COVID. Massachusetts. And again, we're looking for sponsors for this. Resolution. I'm, I'm happy to be the only sponsor that has come forward, but certainly to her here should speak up. Okay. All right, so. I think it's pretty direct and self-evident. There, this is one of the important things is that. We've seen that. In general, I think that's the outcome. Don and Natalie Blase. Have entered reintroduced legislation. HD 3821 calling for a COVID remembrance day on the first Monday of March. And, and this is also. and Markey introduced the legislation in the Senate. So I feel like we are supporting those actions and I would love to get questions, comments, concerns from the group and I don't know whose hand was up first so I'm going to go with Lynn because that's how it is on my screen. So the, I hate to change something that has come from, you know, a group like this but I think when it says survivors Memorial Day it confused for me it confuses it with Memorial Day and I wish it said remember and stay but maybe we don't want to mess with that. Then down below on the paragraph where there's supposed to fill in numbers um this is a becomes a guessing game and I am trying to figure out how or are looking at this whether we can just recognize that more that many people's people worldwide and in the United States have lost their lives due to COVID-19 and maybe and what we could say in Amherst alone I I don't know that we have a correct number yeah maybe Jo has you know a number she feels comfortable with okay thank you for bringing those issues up okay and then under the now therefore is where it says that the mayor or city council it should say that yeah Mandy yeah so I mean I'm going to bring this out when we review the rules for some of my proposed rule changes but this is an example of where and and I know Pat you're the sponsor and you've got things going on but where this isn't ready for a clear consistent and actionable review it's not our job as GOL to fill in the numbers it's not our job to put town council there it should have came to GOL with those numbers there we're not supposed to be filling in those numbers so I don't know what to do with it right because I'm not a sponsor I don't really want to sponsor this because I don't want to put my time into it but we can't send it on to the council like this because it's not ready I do have one clear consistent and actionable thing beyond that concern to mention which is the first whereas paragraph seems more logical to go towards the end of the resolution or whatever we call the first now therefore yeah somewhere in there I'm not sure where your sponsors you put it but it just seems more logical to go not as the first whereas in terms of clarity because we hadn't defined the term yet and stuff like that or why March would be appropriate but there's paragraphs afterwards that get you to those points so those are my comments okay I'm going to take Lynn's questions comments before and then Michelle before I respond go ahead Lynn please take Michelle next okay I appreciate Mandy for bringing up that point and I think that is it possible for us to approve it and with some language that acknowledges that the sponsors will add the fill in the blank pieces that need to be filled in here it sounds like maybe a little research needs to be done to answer some of these highlighted areas is that right Pat well it's interesting because I'm going to say they're not needed I felt comfortable with I think it was Lynn saying whereas more you know people worldwide and you know or hundreds of people worldwide or whatever a more generalized thing I feel comfortable with that the reason this is here in an unfinished state is because it was gotten just came to us and the only meeting we have really is that I believe is the 27th of February so we would go past this March 10th date before the council could vote on it so I agree with sponsors and this instance myself being more prepared I have no problem with that but I think there was a reason that it was less prepared so I'm going to suggest to the sponsor that we do whereas millions of people worldwide and in the United States have lost their lives to the deadly COVID-19 virus period and I totally agree with Mandy Jo's suggestion something that I will get to as we go to the rules right and into the deadly COVID-19 virus and take out up above where it says I don't think you want to take out do millions of people worldwide and in the United States have lost their lives due to COVID-19 no it should say do take out to COVID-19 because it's in there twice now okay yes so oh I see yes okay and I do we put the word the before town council that the town council I don't know I think we tend to yeah we do and the last whereas needs the period instead of the semicolon and and does there need to be after now therefore virus comma and or not I again I'm I have to be honest and say I I'm not as I haven't been focusing on this at the level that you all have been thank thank you for all of us okay the last be it there for the result should have urges instead of urge right and the first now therefore should have a period not a comma at the end thank you that results like the old gl this is what the projected cost none should be deleted yeah and then signatures added yeah and we were and we move the first one the first whereas just before the now therefore and that was agreed okay Michelle as your hand up yep Michelle could you just scroll up a little bit here whoever's managing that oh okay never mind perfect so I guess we're at a place where we are voting on recommending the town we're making a motion to recommend to the town council that the coven 19 victims and survivors memorial day resolution is clear consistent and actionable as amended second okay and I'm going to vote yes on that Lynn yes Mandy hi Michelle hi Jennifer hi okay thank you for the work you had to put in on that and I will contact Jennifer Ritz Sullivan today too okay oh I would like to make a motion that we adopt to go to the adoption of minutes from our last meeting on February 1st so I'd like to move that to adopt the February 1st 2023 minutes as presented unless there are concerns or changes put forth by any members of the committee second okay any okay I'm gonna go ahead and vote to move to adopt the February 1st 2023 minutes as presented second okay yeah Mandy hi Michelle hi Jennifer hi I'm an eye and Lynn I okay all right so what I'd like to do now is to have a break for public comment I'm not sure how many are there any attend there I know I'm really surprised real quick who seconded that amendment I mean data yeah sorry okay thank you no yell at us at any moment break into us at any moment that you need something so what I would like to do now since we don't have any attendees is to move to close and begin a discussion of changes and concerns about the rules of procedure I'd like to do it in sort of a cluster way we have a very hard stop in an at 10 at 1130 so wherever we are we are stopping that then the discussion of the rules of procedure will continue at our next meeting so there there are several ways to do it one we can just go page by page by page or what we could start with some of the very simple ones first and see if we can get through those and Michelle I saw your hand go up and then Jennifer yeah quickly just I have a future agenda item so I was just making sure you bring that up toward the end before the 1130 hard stop okay why don't you give us that future agenda item now sure I was hoping that I can get my act together to put together a women's history month proclamation and so looking at the timing women's history month is in March it would have to be on next meeting's agenda to make it I think for the March 6th town council meeting okay all right I have that note for myself okay and I'll keep you posted too Pat Jennifer just real quickly I a space that we were starting at 930 today I actually tuned in at 9 I have an 1130 meeting so I may have to cut off like two minutes early that absolutely fine yeah yeah no we voted last time to move them in 930 no no no problem um so uh there are there are a couple of things with the rules and procedures we got uh questions or issues brought up by counselors and we also have the document that has some red line changes and ideas and requests so um some of the counselor comments that came in I'm not sure whether I understand each one of those some of them are pretty clear but what I what I would like to do is if people feel comfortable doing some minor changes before we move into more complex issues is that feel comfortable to people okay well then I'd like to go forward and um and anyone has any very specific very simple changes I have listed uh one two three four five that I think are very simple and direct that we can do very easily um so I guess I'll just start with that and if we you know in terms of the introductory pages and the uh that those need to be changed and updated but the first change would be to 1.4 uh and you can see the change highlighted in red and it's our page uh one not the yeah no uh that's 2.1 yeah 1.4 you can see it's a very simple change the rules of rules of order newly revised and it said 11th and now needs to say 12th edition and do I see any disagreement about changing that can we just uh okay so we have consensus on that and I'd like to um let me see where did I put that uh to page three yeah and here there is one simple change so before we get to 2.1 the election of officers which I think is going to require more discussion I'd like us to go to where uh both um sections three and four where the word brief has been taken out in each one of those is there any if they would like to make a statement of up to two minutes long um it's taking out the word brief in both of those is that anybody uncomfortable with that okay I'm going to assume that's your unanimous agreement and um let me see page 30 the participatory budget I know it's a scroll down sorry Athena and on page 30 the where it has section B then uh I'm sorry the presidential appoint one counselor to serve on the participatory budgeting commission and that has no longer exists so that sentence could just come out Mandy yeah um I propose this I can explain it if people have questions about it but I realized that I didn't propose the deletion of the letter a that Athena just highlighted that there's no need to have that a there then so Athena's on top of it now thank god somebody is is there any issue with this or can we reach consensus on this okay okay thumbs up yeah putting the thumb up just like Michelle did is always helpful just to make sure that I'm not then the other one that I think is rather simple uh is on page 32 appendix a and we've had now yeah now on this one Athena I'm not sure what you're saying on the healthy balance one and the I'm having trouble seeing what you're putting up on the screen so we had there was no change to the healthy balance when it was just I didn't think that okay and then the next one which would be I believe in addition is to lead with uh curiosity and this is the first time I'm seeing replaced judgments and automatic automatic reactions with let me see how I'm sorry I have to use paper is are you crazy curiosity lead with curiosity and replaced judgments and automatic reactions with curiosity and seeking to understand the different perspectives before responding does anybody have trouble with that being included or its grammatical structure or anything else uh and so if we're in agreement about adding that to this section of town council statement of values please give me a thumbs up or thumb this down or you don't care okay all right those are I think the easy ones um I think we need to form do we need to form a motion that adopts those are we going to wait till the end and have an entire a motion for everything Michelle I mean Athena what do you think Mandy has her hand up okay Mandy I'm willing to make that motion um so so it would be um to recommend the town council adopt revisions to rule 1.4 rule 2.1.d 3 rule 2.1.d 4 rule 10.6 and appendix a as presented second so let's uh vote to take the formal vote on that oh no Jennifer I just want to ask so I don't think it's included the part besides about um the the meeting the council meeting before the election of officers the second year that wasn't here okay I just want to make sure no we're just doing really small things yeah yeah just yeah that's yeah that's the only thing in this motion so I'm going to start um with uh Mandy I may be out of the sink hi okay and Michelle I Jennifer I Lynn I and I'm an eye so now I'm I'm sitting here thinking that it what I would like to do now is to go back in and pick up the more um substance issues but I'm also trying to look at some of the suggestions that came in that are not in the document like is there a way to prepare public and council before emotional sensitive topics uh non-resident voters and not non-resident voters the uh non-voting members of finance committee uh including resident members on TSO and CRC uh I'm not sure where we are how to take these up uh in this process so I wouldn't mind some advice here um Michelle one suggestion might be for us to start with that document and have a discussion on each of those items and within those discussions see where they might fit into the rules so that if we are moving them into the rules or adding something we get everything on to one document and then we go through and do everything that there's more than one way to do this but that might be a good starting place yeah that's helpful any other comment on that otherwise I'm going to go with Michelle's uh Mandy yeah I think that works I think for some of them they're more of a charge issue than a rules issue um and so identifying charge because I know there's some rules also that affect charges too so we might want to separate ones that would need charge amendments too the GOLs required to review the committee's structure every year too it's actually part of the rules so separating those that would rules would change if charges changed x y z or vice versa for after we get through the rest of the rules might be good too okay sounds good uh and I don't know who brought up these issues but if it you know I think that anyone is available here in the committee to respond the first one is there Athena could you pull that up thank you is there a way to prepare public and council before emotional or sensitive topics by acknowledging the concerns of the different stakeholders involved and inviting curiosity and understanding as we move forward with the discussion also reminding everyone to focus on policy and not make it personal about people it seems to me that the to focus on policy and not make it personal comes up later in rules and procedures but I guess I'm open to people's reacting to this and Mandy yeah I agree that second comment is part of I think rule five or whatever it is regarding courtesy and conduct or public participation and I don't know what we've rephrased it in terms of how we've named it but that rule the first part I don't see how it goes into rules right because each person on the council or public member has different sensitivities and react you know so so I don't know how we could identify um a consistent way of saying these are emotional topics these are not right um because and and if we tried to do that I think we would say we would end up having to say nearly everything we do is an emotional topic because for some people different things are really what trigger that that sensitive issue and so I I don't know how to do that and I don't know how I would do it within a rule so I'm not sure it's a rule thing personally but okay thank you Michelle yeah I agree with Mandy there um and I think that we picked it up in the value about curiosity a bit so we have curiosity now within the rules and our values so it seems like that might cover it any other comment or concern and is there agreement with um well reminding everyone to focus on policy and not make it personal is in rule five I believe so I think we can is there Jennifer you look like you're pondering something intently so I was just thinking is this really like saying that you know the presiding officer would make a statement that yeah I'm comfortable taking it out I think that's all right so I think we have consensus on that now this expanding CRC and TSO to include uh resident members uh whether voting or not voting I you know there would be a that feels like a charge issue and not a rules issue am I in error about that uh Lynn you're muted Lynn thank you very well I'm I'm not going to try to answer the question if it's a charge or not um I I first of all I love the resident members of um the finance committee but I want to just ask Mandy Joe because that option I believe was raised in the charter itself so if we were to add um resident members to other committees even GOL is that inconsistent with the charter so the charter says the president appoints all members of the committees appoints members of all committees of the town council beyond that um the charter doesn't much you know it says the town council shall determine its own standing or ad hoc committees so it doesn't indicate how the membership of standing or ad hoc committees needs to be as far as I know um it does the next one the issue of finance is because finance is actually a mentioned committee in the charter in section um I'm trying to find it here um but I know we mentioned it five five five five c b b um and and that one says the finance committee of the town council so it's a town council committee and then the last sentence says may include members of the public who shall have a voice but no vote in the finance committee's deliberation council rule shall address the appointments of such members um so you know going on the council the charter doesn't talk about non other council committees beyond the finance committee we can make any of our ones we want but it does specifically mention non members of the public non counselors for finance and it does specifically say they will not have a vote by a shell so let me be having been on the finance committee since its inception um let me just say that when we first did when we first added non voting members to the finance committee we did it with the idea that it was a trial basis and uh it's based on how the last three and a half or so many years have gone it's gone really really well and in fact um it the people who are the added members to the finance committee have contributed greatly to the conversation those people are selected by submitting CAFs and then I believe it's this committee that makes the recommendation to the council as to who uh they would approve based on this so if we consider this I would like us to consider it on a trial basis and the second thing is I do not agree with giving them equal vote I I feel like they continue to be um part of the committee they continue to be part of the quorum of the committee but I would stop with the issue of vote the other thing is that if you add two to each of these that's that's okay then you'd end up with seven which is fine finance we have eight and it's fine so that that's all my comments for the moment thank you Lynn uh Mandy um it sounds like we might be getting into a substantive discussion of this I caution us with non finance members not because it might not be good but the reason the council gets to appoint the non voting members of the finance committee is because the charter allows it um the the other committees are not mentioned in the charter in terms of being able to do that and so the charter would require if we put non resident members non voting members or even resident members that have a vote on say CRC and TSO the president per the charter would be the sole appointing authority and so um there may be ways to to write rules about how the president makes that decision sort of you know we could potentially write a rule that says well the council will have a committee that makes recommendations to the president on who to appoint but in the end the president has sole appointing authority under the charter for all members of council committees no matter whether they're counselors or not counselors um and beyond that because of that you can't really guarantee a three-year term for those people I don't believe I I would want to hear KP law's discussion on that because if you change a president given that the president has sole authority to appoint members could the president just appoint a different member after a year by themselves just like they could with a counselor right um in theory a president could remove any counselor from a committee and put someone else on at any time or if the presidency changes mid-year or at the change of a council completely and so I I think it's a wider discussion than for the non finance committee than it is for finance because of how the charter is written and those issues need to be thought through more than just oh it's working well on finance let's try it because of these other issues thank you Mandy Jennifer yeah I just have a clarification question so is what we're I'm hearing is that in order to have resident members of let's say TSO and CRC it would require a charter change no we could do it it's just the president has sole pointing authority oh the reason it doesn't but I'm saying if the if the charter were to be changed if we wanted it to be like finance committee those resident members where it comes from that would require a charter change yes okay um and so then can a charter change happen at any time or does it only when the charters being reviewed at those 10 year it's technically can happen anytime indy joe you want to just has to follow state law or our charter um that doesn't the charter built in a regular review to make sure that review would happen but state law provides provisions on how a charter can be changed I would agree that um and then another question if so if uh let's say the uh president were to a point and it was a three year term would that be a guarantee or two year whatever it was it wouldn't be guaranteed if the president changed to more okay I would be uncomfortable just in principle not reflecting our current president having that be a president decision I agree with mandy joe that yeah I agree with that as well I I think I will just say I believe it gives the president too much power yep yep I I'm I really want to stress I'm not objecting to non-voting residents being on other committees that I feel has been enormously well received for finance but my there's other issues here that have been raised that need to be worked out um but I'm going to suggest that we not try to resolve this one today that we um maybe have a set of questions like this that we are in fact going to ask kp law and maybe we can even have them attend a go well meeting that sounds good to me anyone else commenting on that I'm going to kp law um I feel like we we've temporarily gotten through that with some things to check with kp law so the next one is finance make finance resident voting the charter is permissive for non-voting but does not say cannot vote rational expands expertise and longevity gives voices more equal weight can I man manding and then michelle as it came up for me just a minute I disagree with that the charter is doesn't mention about non-voting I mean the language is the finance committee may include members of the public who shall have a voice but no vote in the finance committee's deliberations and so the way I read that is you you can't have if it includes members of the public they have no vote with that shall like we don't have to put members of the public on but if we do they have no vote per the charter um so I don't think we can do what this is asking even if we wanted to without changing the charter michelle yeah that's very very clear um if what Mandy just read is in the charter I think that um maybe this person who suggested this didn't didn't see that what I was going to say is as a former member of the finance committee I haven't seen what I would think about is whether it would impact the engagement of the non-resident or excuse me the non-counselor resident member and I have not seen that to be the case so I feel like at least in my time the resident members have been extremely engaged and been able to provide a voice an important voice um but given it's really not um it's a moot point it sounds like Lynn and I totally agree with Michelle's observation uh it's it's been really successful thank you yeah and I agree with it as well for my time on finance um their voices were very valuable and they were looked to as equals um so I feel fine leaving it the way it is man uh Athena and then Mandy um please take Mandy's comment first okay Mandy I just wanted to say and one of the workarounds that Andy as chair for the last four years has made that has made it successful is that he takes that straw poll of them um so we get their non-vote quote vote however you want to call it um even though it's not technically a vote we do get to see whether they agree with the recommendation or not um and that is is practically a vote right there's there's the committee has found a work around around that chart thank you Athena I was going to make the same point and suggest that if it was really important to the council to have that be part of the official process so that if a finance committee chair changes someday um that finance committee reports include um support of resident members or something like that I really like that yeah I do too and I'm going to ask uh Lynn as a member of the finance committee to bring that up to the finance committee at your next meeting that possible yep it might also be a charge change so I was going to say I don't think that might be in a charge but let me bring it up to Andy okay we're doing pretty well I think um he's all right let's get to I've lost it here we go um zoning I'm going to require any proposed zoning change to go first to committee for discussion and analysis unless initiated by any of the following president and clerk of the any of the following period president clerk should review motion wording to ensure that motion cannot override this path of committee first unless two-thirds vote of council to expedite and I think I would like to hold this one till we get um to the larger discussion on uh by zoning by laws you know planning zoning things like that um I'm doing a little inarticulate here is there any reaction to holding that I see a thumbs up yeah because it's going to be a big discussion okay all right so we're kind um consider writing the next one I think thank you Athena consider writing three-minute and courtesy stronger to allow debate but permit the president to shorten if repetitive same person and I'm believing this is not about public comment which we know by because of freedom of speech can be as repetitive as it wishes we have many debates I think we're a counselor and this all of us contribute to this uh is repeating the same thing over and over again um and and it almost begins to feel like a fight baby between two or three counselors or something like that but I'm I'm um I'd be interested in suggestion in what and how this would be written but I'm also interested in comments from other counselors on this committee Mandy yeah I think this one bears further discussion but when we get to that section of the rules because there's a couple of proposed changes that this one kind of goes with and so I think we should gather all those changes together and discuss sort of as a group so that we have a more holistic discussion yeah and I'm seeing some nodding on that so I'm going to assume that we have some consensus and move on to the last one on this page permit submission of written statement in packet following a meeting if introduced with verbal summary during the meeting this could include analysis or policy view the written document cannot circulate before the public meeting and verbal summary it must pertain to a topic under debate or consideration by the council during the posted meeting this process also permitted for committee by members or counselors not on the committee who attend the meeting and provide public comments Jennifer yes I just have a question um so is that the same as reading a statement into the record I don't know the answer to that and seeing that I believe the intention with the suggestion is that a written statement be added to the packet after the meeting and that a summary would be read or spoken about during the meeting okay so I have another question if one wanted to read a statement into the record you you have it prepared you read it during a meeting whether it's a committee meeting or a council meeting and then it's given to the clerk to submit as part of the record of the meeting is that correct Pat if I may please I'll go ahead that's not been our practice in the past um the minutes include a summary of the discussion so in the past the minutes have said something like you know uh council or so and so read a statement in support of our opposition to and you know summarize their their comments um but I don't believe I've added the written statement to the packet I think there's there was one instance when Paul read a statement um at the most recent meeting about the July 5th incident and that was included in the packet but that's not I don't recall a time that we've done that for counselor comments so I guess I'm just asking what is this is that is that what this is talking about right the suggestion is that if there's a summary of a written statement that the the entire written statement would be added to the packet after the meeting I'm going to go to Michelle and then Mandy and then Lynn I can't say for sure but just based on some discussions I've had with counselors um it seems to me like a way to try to ensure that a person or a counselor's particular position is made available to the public given the confines of you know our ability to maybe post blog posts or or something like that it's like a way that if we have a particular position on something especially that might be ongoing that it makes its way into the public's eye somehow um I without this person being here I can't you know say for sure but that's sort of what I've gathered in discussions um that I've had with other counselors thank you Michelle Mandy yeah I was going to say something similar but I in the this issue has come up in the past in various places um and and I think it's not necessarily for the public always um but for other counselors if someone feels like they've done a whole bunch of research and written up sort of a position paper that cites research and cites this and cites that they want a way to um get it into the packet and there hasn't been necessarily a consistent not consistent I wouldn't say consistent there hasn't necessarily been a clear manner of if you've done all of that where you have a long three page thing about you know X item we're talking about that pole position placement of a pole and you researched why that pole placement would be horrible and you know and you could go underground instead you know um that that and they wrote it up they don't have a way of distributing that right up to counselors and I think that's it's more of a counselor thing than a a public thing is how I interpreted it um but but yeah I think Michelle's sort of the same thing right like what happens okay uh Athena do you want to jump in before Lynn uh just a quick comment that say for example a counselor a counselor could send articles or papers without their opinions to the entire council before or after a meeting and if those were referred to during a meeting then they would be included in the packet because they were used at the meeting it's the opinion part that gets a little squirrelly in terms of open meeting law but it does sound like that there is a process actually but it hasn't been clearly defined so that every counselor knows what it is I think the suggestion is about the opinion part yeah okay Lynn and then Jennifer um I I think both Michelle and Mandy Joe have interpreted um the first part of this uh as it is probably meant because it's certainly something I've heard from other counselors regarding that I would like our rules to get much more clear about what can and cannot be circulated in advance and what can and cannot be added to the packet and the process after so this might be a longer discussion it might be when we get to that rule at the same time the last sentence in my mind though connected is a different question and it is how does a counselor who is not on a committee of the council raise issues to that committee for consideration and again I've heard this before and I would like our rules to be very clear how this can be done but I I really feel these need to be addressed separately yeah um because they are in many ways two separate issues okay okay thank you Lynn um Jennifer um yeah I'm glad this discussion is is happening because I mean I so I'll just say there was at one time at CRC I wanted to share something and I thought of asking that it be put in the packet um but but I didn't know if that so yeah if you since we can't share something with the committee all the committee members unless it's publicly posted if we want to share something before a meeting can we do that can we write something up and then ask Athena to have it go in the packet for the meeting Athena I just want to express a little bit of concern about this conversation skirting the open meeting law and finding a way of doing this that avoids specifically violating the open meeting law rather than being really clear that opinions are shared during a meeting that's what the meeting is for this is my opinion and that for committee meetings counselors have an opportunity to speak during public comment at the committee meetings and typically what our process has been in the past is that if counselors have specific comments about something that's in front of the committee they send those to the chair and then raise them during the committee meeting but I feel strongly that trying to thread the needle about avoiding an open meeting law violation is a slippery slope and that's just my opinion but I think opinions should be shared during a meeting I appreciate that I've seen a Michelle and then Jennifer yeah I think some of the problem is just not having the time and in a meeting to to fully express for example what Mandy was saying I'll give an example I have put together sort of a some charts that I would like for the finance committee to look at I've done some research I've worked on and I've put it together I'm not a member of the finance committee and I agree that Lynn this is a separate a separate kind of piece of things but you know I think that one of the things as a counselor that we are tasked to do is to look at things critically to do our research to come prepared and to be able to share what we learn with our colleagues so I don't necessarily look at it as a way to circumvent the open meeting law but rather can we find a process that will allow for more information sharing between counselors especially given we're working really hard to make our council meetings shorter more efficient there's probably a lot that a counselor could say and take up a lot of time during a meeting that if it had been provided in writing colleagues could look at it you know before or after the meeting to gain a better more broad sense of what that counselor is trying to bring forward Jennifer I realize it may be varying varying into you know everybody thinks their issue is the most important but if so you make a statement during a meeting and it may or may not make it into the minutes you know because maybe or it may just be but you if you feel you really want to have something be part of the record of the meeting or the deliberation is the way to do that by submitting something in writing I guess that's part of and maybe that's this isn't the place for that discussion but you know if you want to make sure something is part of the written record of a meeting or of a deliberation on a whole topic is that when you would prepare a written statement you know for to be submitted as part of the record and is that something that our process allows to happen and is that relevant to this discussion this paragraph any comment Athena no I'm going to go to Michelle I'll just quickly say I have seen in other meetings in other communities as well as at higher levels where a counselor will request that something is added to the record and I don't think we have a process for that currently and so if we're if we'd like to create a process for that that might be the discussion to have that's an interesting idea and we would want Athena included in that process discussion manding and then I was going to say the same thing but it I think it's a separate discussion and would have to be a separate rule and so should come wherever we would put that with some potential language yes Lynn I think this goes on the list for conversation with Kp law I'd love to see us get real clear on this because of the number of times it's arisen and and it feels very murky yeah thank you Lynn anybody else Jennifer your hand was up but I think you had finished I think if that gets added to the Kp law question and we can address it in a future time that would be thank you can I add one more thing before we move on yes if there is a rule change that allows a counselor opinion to be made part of the record written record we would need to be really clear about when those opinions are made available to counselors that they would have to be made available to the public at the same time that they're made available to counselors and then there it would be some challenges in terms of naturally counselors would have opinions about other counselors opinions and we can't get into a back and forth outside a meeting you know someone has submitted an opinion and now someone else has an opinion about that opinion and does that become part of it so yeah it's a very slippery slope as you said before yeah on many levels including staff time and preparing you know packets and things like that in a timely manner um I think we've done a fairly decent job of this list and it is now let me see just about 10 minutes after 11 so I'd like to take I guess the next 15 minutes and start to go through the document the actual rules and procedures that have been written lined and does that make sense to folks yeah and I've got probably I don't know if I have a full half hour in me so we're gonna pretty much stop on the dime closer to 11 30 Jennifer you have to leave it right two minutes before 11 30 so yeah I think that's a good time for us to all stop so on this one I think moving through page by page makes some sense or are there clusters that I mean I think the clusters are within the topic headings the rules headings so we have on I don't know what page that is right now but on rule two on organization the election of officers I guess I'm also gonna ask is if if one of the us on GLL requested a change or an addition or a deletion to to if you're comfortable sharing your name with that the other the other document didn't have names but it's sometimes helpful to to have that like this is why I put this in here or or not so I'll go with how people are comfortable Jennifer and then Michelle well I just have a question about this is this meant so the the meeting it would be the last meeting of the prior calendar year yeah and and so people who wanted to run would kind of declare their candidacy then the only yeah I mean I'm just asking and then yes that's what yeah I think they could somebody decide between the December meeting and the January meeting that they wanted to run then so I'm just wondering some clarification here and again if if anyone here wrote this then they'd be the best answering person to answer that Michelle that's me yeah um I Jennifer I tried to to also add language about it not precluding other things and then I thought you know what I'm just gonna in my mind no it doesn't mean that between that meeting and the next meeting someone who spoke out and to announce a candidacy couldn't back out it doesn't mean that another person couldn't come forward it's simply to and this comes from my own personal experience when I decided to run for vice president I didn't feel comfortable calling colleagues to announce that because I was concerned that I would violate open meeting law and so I didn't have the opportunity to share my reasoning or anything and so I thought this would be an opportunity that if a counselor knew they wanted to run for one of those offices or those positions they could have the opportunity in a public setting to express that to the council and maybe even get feedback from their colleagues about it so that that was really the impetus of this one and I also wanted to say that Lynn actually did include this year a meeting prior to that meeting in which we had some brief discussion about the upcoming election so I was really trying to sort of enshrine that and just further define and I like the language you used about announcing candidacy in a way like it's just to kind of formalize that possibility for a counselor. Any reactions to that? Mandy? Yeah I appreciate the explanation Michelle for the reasons and the acknowledgement that at least the first half of this is sort of already done on a regular basis right? I don't know I want to hear more from others about the second half of this what Michelle says sounds good yet I also worry the officer selection of the council by the counselors is sort of an internal choice and I worry about the potential for external pressure if candidacies are announced and think about the timing of this if candidacies are announced a week before the holiday season and the external pressure or what might happen or pressure might be the wrong word the external indicators that might come in over a holiday season when we're trying to take a break from council work regarding a counselor's own decision on who to potentially vote for and I don't know whether that's something we should or should not be concerned about I know KP law has indicated that this really is just an internal decision of the council versus an external decision and so I'd like to hear more people's thoughts on that on sort of that and then if someone does decide to withdraw say does it make it more likely or if someone hasn't decided does it you know how does this affect even individual counselors own's decisions on whether to run or not if they've already said and announced publicly they were running but then decided to say pull out but had received but the council received say a lot of emails that says yes select that person you know what kind of pressure does it put on individual counselors so I just want to hear more about it Lynn you're muted Lynn thank you I'd like to have a period put at the end of agenda to discuss the upcoming election because as others have recognized that has been the practice actually for the last several years I think the second part for some of the very same reasons Mandy Joe just mentioned um you know it it is a council decision and yet I could see whether I don't care if it's a holiday or whose holiday it is I could see the public jumping into this in a way that may or may not be healthy and that's my concern but one of the ways to think about this would be to say I'm considering it versus I am doing it so that one could do that that however will not take away the public pressure that could arise Michelle yeah um I respectfully disagree that the public pressure during whatever period of time is something that we should consider when considering this um I am curious about hearing that it's an internal decision I'm a little bit confused actually about what that means but regardless of those things coming back to um there are counselors who will feel more comfortable calling around and telling each of their colleagues that they are planning to run and I know that that has been that has happened um and that puts a person who maybe doesn't have that same comfort level in doing that um in I think a position that uh is just not equitable and so I'm trying to solve that problem within the confines of open meeting law so how does a person who wants to announce to their colleagues so it's not a surprise on the day of and share that it's not about for example disdain or disrespect for the current folks or even to get feedback you know like well you know whatever feedback uh colleagues may have in a respectful environment how can that happen for a counselor like me who I just didn't I felt very scared to make those calls um that that I would be in violation and it is I think that it is a violation ultimately to do that and so how do we solve that problem um I think Jennifer was next yes I agree with I do agree you know share Michelle's concerns I mean I think it brings it out into the open by having the opportunity you know to um announce it you know publicly beforehand because otherwise it seems like there's kind of a scrambling in the few days before the first meeting I mean it just seems and in a sense if you know whoever is currently let's say in a president or vice president position it's known that they're a candidate so it kind of puts someone who may also want to run not in this it may be an equal footing so I I do think that if there's another way to do it but I I do think having trans I'm not saying there should be another way that this this is how we may want to do it you know on the understanding that if somebody decides between the last meeting of the year and the election that they can still you know throw their hat in the ring but I think it does make it more transparent because otherwise there is a kind of I think it just sets up where there's no other choice but there to be sort of rumbling is under the surface and somebody talking to this person I just think it for the again for transparency and putting everyone who would be interested in running for the position of president vice president equal footing. Lynn? So I'm gonna make a suggestion and I'm also want to just respond to Michelle's comment the reality is that if we wanted the president to be elected by the public our elections would be very different and we don't have that provision at this time um that's what would happen if there was a mayor uh the mayor would be elected and then the public elects the mayor um there's any number of ways to be approached that so let me try something and just say at that same meeting those who may wish to run for president and or vice president it's not a continuation well maybe it can be I don't think president or vice president shall have the opportunity to address their colleagues I have to also say to you um I don't think there's anything in our present process of meetings that would have prevented this anyway but um that's that's my suggested way of incorporating this okay I'm gonna take a moment to say something and then I'll call on you Jennifer I feel like the process that we have had works um I don't see the need um I hear you know Michelle talking about uh shyness and concern you know feeling nervous about doing it I'm not sure how doing it the week the meeting before changes that because you still have to make those statements and I'm just like trying to figure this out but it seems like um this it just feels like we're taking something that has been working that everybody who wishes to run for those positions including the current people in them are speaking to the council who are making the decision when we go to that election so I feel like this this is not necessary um but that's that's where I am right now and Jennifer you I think you had your hand up but I'm going to go to Michelle because I don't see Michelle and then Mandy yeah I just wanted to be clear I wasn't talking about being shy to make a statement I'm talking about um not calling up colleagues before and letting them know that I'm running I you Pat you were saying that this is the process has been working and what I'm sharing as a colleague and a counselor is that it didn't work for me um because I didn't feel like I could call up my colleagues and tell them that I was planning to run whereas and again I'm sorry I really don't want to make this personal but I know that that was that's not been the case for other counselors um and so I feel like that's an unfair I mean I can go ahead I could go ahead I guess and just do it but I think that that's not I think Athena would agree that that is a violation of open meeting law to do that well that's what I was going to go to Michelle so thank you for calling on Athena because I'd like to hear from her yeah whether it's a violation um making those phone calls Athena speaking with individual counselors outside of a meeting is not a violation of open meeting law what we can't do is for counselors to go I'm running and these people are voting for me and share an you know an informal poll um outside a meeting so there is a degree of trust about what that what those conversations are like and that um when those discussions happen outside meetings that counselors not be polling each other and then sharing what those polls are outside meetings does that Michelle okay do you have a reaction to that I think that's really interesting um and I think a possible possibly a sort of distinguishing fact that not all counselors would be aware of it's very nuanced um and so if that is the case um then I think that there shall be trust uh between colleagues that that wouldn't so maybe the answer is um for the council current council president at the time during that meeting that's already been occurring just to simply explain that um so that folks who are considering it understand very clearly what they can and cannot do and I would be very comfortable with that if I don't know how to enshrine that necessarily so that you know in the for future councils it would uh because it is so nuanced so I have that's that's an excellent uh compromise Michelle it really is and I think that we could add language to the election thing about that statement needing to be uh when there the announcement is made that they there will be an upcoming election that the statement be made about open meeting and polling and things like that I think that if that were there that would have solved the issue for you very clearly I think um so thank you for bringing it up um I'm going to go to Mandy I know we're almost out of time um I think that is a good compromise Michelle I've been in your position um not just for vice presidency in running again but also for running for president against our current president um and I've also been in the position when I've chosen as a vice president to not run again and how do you let colleagues know that you are not running again too um you know and so I think if we would announce those rules maybe um but not the regular meeting immediately prior to a lot of the consideration goes in and thought goes in well before that happens and so I wonder if we think about what meeting is the most appropriate meeting for that maybe it's not the last meeting of the calendar year maybe it's the first meeting in December or something like that especially if it would start to include rules and all and and you know I still have to think about this but but potentially allow um you know this this it one of my concerns is the opportunity to address colleagues but but it's also that wishing you know that that announcement but maybe there's a way to word it that it's more of instead of wishing to run or intending to run who is considering running or not running um you know and and make it a little more informal without necessarily the need for a statement before the election I think that that concerns me versus if it was just a poll and people essentially raised their hands yeah I'm thinking about running for president you know I I could have raised my hand multiple times in this past year about that right you know and and if it's not as formal with having to come up with that statement before the day of the election it might not be seen as as much of by the public as a firm out here are your two candidates or your three candidates and that's one of the things I worry about is that it's seen as the candidacy is set um and I think that addressing the colleagues might further that that look versus just sort of taking that raw poll of is anyone considering running for vice president this year um and less of a line in the sand I think that's also good suggestion I feel very good about the collaboration that's happened in this discussion um Athena very quickly and I know Jennifer you may have to leave already uh it is 11 30 oh sorry just one really quick other yes no go ahead Athena um that the onus is not just on the candidate but other counselors hearing if we hear about who's running during a meeting or outside a meeting that there's not a discussion and sharing who's voting which way outside a meeting so that's on everyone for upholding the meeting law and trusting that we're all upholding the meeting law outside meetings thank you Athena that was that's a good way to close what I'd like to do is pick up this discussion right where we are now at the beginning of our next meeting and um and and work through from there I really as I just said I really appreciate what happened and I feel like there was compromise and unless there's an objection on uh joining the meeting at 11 excellent chair meeting great nice job we'll see thank you all for your help every one of you help today thank you and Athena and thank you Athena take care