 Calling Outreach Communications and Appointments Committee to order at 9 approximately 9 32 a.m. and We have an agenda and I I'll just say this for whoever's watching out there So the election of officers is going to wait until a little bit later and we're going to continue our discussion on the town council Appointed non-voting members of the finance committee Yeah But that really wasn't what I was going to say what I was going to say was one of the Documents that is just available to everybody this morning in addition to your beautiful agenda is a very rough draft of a Report from this committee to town council and finance committee. Yeah people and the only reason I did that because that is the open designee's Task which is Darcy in this case. The only reason I did that was to pull together Thought would be easy to pull together the peace parts, you know just to follow what our thing was So there's a thing in our folder that's called peace parts So it's in it's in today's folder and all the finance committee stuff is now under a finance committee folder Under today's meaningful So going to today's meaningful or you see your agenda going to today's meaningful or you see the finance committee folder That has all the different things. Okay, Darcy used that Darcy wrote the Darcy's Addendum is in there. I have the thing that's marked okah draft That is just you know, we started a conversation on the 17th. We're having another conversation on the 24th I added another legal reference. They didn't change any of Darcy's original words. I tried to insert the Thing that shows how we advertised for members and stuff, you know all that added stuff I was trying to put it on one document. I may need Evan's help But that is something we can take a look at just in terms of I know we often don't have any notes And where are they so if you go into today's meeting folder You'll see Sarah's agenda that starts with the word agenda And then you'll also see an actual Okay, I just You know I I spent several hours on this yesterday, too So I so this just trying to pull together some parts. So hopefully if it's duplicative and you don't mean it And if it's not great, all right, so the last time that we started discussing the Appointments to the for the non-voting members resident not voting members to the finance committee One of the things that came up was that there was a That someone had applied Their CAF will just say it didn't it didn't make it to To us so we have We have that to discuss and what that means to us We still need to speak to Darcy and we need to talk a little about process We also need to look at the the names that were proposed to us and decide whether we would like to recommend or not recommend I am not sure how this committee would like to handle it's sort of a ball of yarn It's a little tangled how we want to just start picking that apart We do have Angela here right now who was going to speak to us So my feeling is that if Angela is here right now we should Let her speak and We can do that we'll start picking that ball apart that way so Thank you for being here today It's my pleasure So I'm wondering if you want to maybe just speak to We when our last meeting we just kind of found out that this is what had happened and we were like Oh, it happened and we didn't have much discussion after that or really any information so Maybe you could just talk to us about what you know about it And then I'll sort of let the conversation, you know, go. Yep, George. We need to appoint a minute ticker. Oh Which I guess Who should be me? Because Darcy needs to yeah, she's got a lot of late So but I think we should have a minute a great absolutely. I'm so sorry I thought you guys had worked it out, and I didn't realize that so yeah, that's okay. Thank you, George I appreciate that so I will start taking minutes Do you would you like us to give you a few just to get organized? You're good. Okay. Sorry about that. I apologize Sorry, it's okay. So my name is Angela Mills and in my position as executive assistant to the town manager one of my responsibilities this spring has been to coordinate the interviews for candidates for boards committees and commissions I Take full responsibility for that from start to finish. In fact, I recently took the responsibility for issuing the appointment letters and making sure that copies of those get to staff liaisons and the clerk's office in a timely fashion I Call people who mark off more than one Committee board or commission or who just simply marks general interests and I have a pretty wide-ranging conversation with them for several of those people I Reach out to them again by email and by phone when they remain unappointed or Are in limbo to see if they'd like to come back in for different boards and committees and commissions For the person that didn't make your list. I just I recall having What I consider to be an extensive conversation, which in my line of work means more than three minutes less than 20 minutes and The conversation really went something like this you've marked off these things in our calendar These three are coming up for appointment in the next few weeks. What interests you most? Again, I take full responsibility for that name not getting on your full list of people who had expressed interest But at the time I knew that person had been appointed to a different committee or commission and Had expressed that one commitment in my from my recollection one commitment was sufficient and That person's view for their time So I guess that thank you Angela So I guess that that you know as we sort of are doing this We're making we're sort of making this all a practice or procedure as we go So one of the things that we didn't really expressly even think of to talk about was when we talk about the pool What exactly does the pool mean and what do we want it to mean? So I think that there's a couple things that you know that we need to decide and then communicate clearly Is what we mean by the pool and then what you know, okay feels that they need to have for information going In this is something that I can think of immediately that that comes to mind And then the other is it something we're struggling with which is the community activity form? What does it say and in how when it comes in somewhere? How are people notified and how especially is okay notified? So those are two things that I can think of that I don't Think that we necessarily maybe we thought that we made clear maybe we didn't make clear, but I think it's something that we Should Discuss here and those are two things on the top of my head that I could think of there are things that are pertinent to this Issue that happened and I'm wondering if yeah, Darcy. I think this is also related to Communications with the applicants and It gets confused because of the difference between the town manager appointments and the and the town council appointments, so I I think it would be helpful for us if we just got pulled into The communications with regard to any of the ones that are just town council appointments So that just from the very get-go We would be in on the communications, of course we can't be in on your telephone communication But I guess you could just indicate on the spreadsheet if You know if we had gotten a spreadsheet that said the name of this person and that you'd had a conversation and that He or she had indicated That they were fine with the other committee that they decided on Because I did see that there was one other applicant on the list too Who It did not say on the spreadsheet that he or she withdrew it said That they had taken another position and maybe maybe they had indicated that that was They didn't also want to be considered for this, but that just maybe just more and more information on the spreadsheet and Copying us on any any communications email communications or whatever so that we can see What they're saying back to you I Just want to let you know that for each candidate that could be 22 emails. So prepare yourself So, I mean, I think this is where where these are things that as we're trying to figure this process out There's some things that feels seem sort of obvious and then they're not obvious And it's not something that we've made specific and then there's some things that seem like they would work And then in practice like in theory it seems like it would work and then in practice that It doesn't so that's why I'm saying that I appreciate you coming in and telling us like What happened and then I think there needs to be a broader discussion of Four town council appointments. What does town council? Expect and have they communicated that so For a while. I was wondering when everybody said well, what was your pool? What was your pool? What was your pool? I am now understanding that the pool means something Something different to everyone and so I think that the council needs to decide What what do they consider the pool and in what do they want to see for the pool names? And if they decide that it's every single person that you know, even people that had Indicated that they were interested in anything or everything that they could be of service to apparently it seems like That council is going to say that all those people should be in the pool So that's I'm just saying so what I'm saying to you is is Thank you for what you've done and then council needs to decide what are the specifics write it down Make it a procedure and then Let you know so that It's clear right because I would your mind I mean counselor Dumont has just suggested that not just for town council appointments But also for town manager and the quicker we close that loop No Okay, we don't have control over so the quicker that we close that loop the better because it does even though I'm just CC knew it does change the way that I function in terms of daily procedure Right, that would be really helpful So I Think I Want to make sure what what Darcy says isn't immediately Angela doesn't just take that as a directive from the committee before we discuss it because I also have some Concerns about that and one of my concerns throughout this entire process has been With the ability to select multiple committees on a CAF some of which might be under the purview of the town council And some of which might be under the purview of the town manager There are times where we are seeing candidates for town manager appointed Bodies when we shouldn't be because they are listed on the CAF So because I was on the interview Because I was the okadizign for rank choice voting I saw all the CES ran just voting right and there were some people who selected committees For that that were town manager one So now I know who's in the pool or a portion of that pool And I also worry a little bit about being CC'd on every email because if someone selects Planning board and affordable housing trust and Angela has a correspondence with them via email that saying well What would you would you rather do planning board or affordable housing trust and they go back and forth and we're watching this and eventually They come back and say you know what I think I'd rather housing trust. I'm not going to review for planning board Now we know that member of that pool And so I think that it's not as simple as just being CC'd if some of the conversations are Well, which would you prefer if there's a back and forth? So I think that we need to be looped into communication, but I'm a little worried about Any town council appointment any correspondence with any potential applicant? Being CC'd on and I think we need it. I think we need to think about that a little more for thoroughly Before we make a decision. Yeah, so I maybe I wasn't clear What I'm saying is is that thank you so much This this shows us where we need to make improvement where things have not been clear and and also where council doesn't Town town council doesn't doesn't necessarily know exactly how it wants to do that. So yes anything we say here today is That's not law. We will absolutely write something that is very specific and communicate it to you so that there's not Miss communication that there's clarity and that there isn't you know misunderstanding or frustration because We don't need that so we will make sure that we get our act together and clarify a lot of these things And then we will we will write it down and we absolutely like Communicate it to you verbally and in writing so that it's it's easier and it's not so frustrating Thank you, Angela So this has been really messy and we just found out about it at the end of last week's thing And so there are a number of issues outstanding that I'm sure we can be labor at some length today much to George's Frustration, but right now I want to be clear that I Appreciate the way you phrase that which is why I've really liked having you be chair because We know staff has been doing way more work with these appointments than they necessarily had to do before right and so The interview as part this scheduled interview thing was only a fairly recent select board phenomena It wasn't for nearly as many people right because we weren't having to fill whole committees We didn't have so many open spaces when it first started etc. And so it's really ramped up in terms of taking a lot of staff time But also to be clear I Can't believe that if I pulled the town council that they would expect that staff gets to take anybody out of our pool Ever like that's just not a thing. I mean I have no idea why it was assumed. I'm not blaming Angela I have no idea why it was assumed by the town manager that that would be the appropriate thing to do I mean if somebody files a CAF we should get the CAF. I mean that it's just that simple then if that person later Decides to withdraw or you know finds out that the time like like Darcy pointed out finds out the time the meeting isn't going to work For them they might withdraw Before the interview they might withdraw during the interview They might withdraw after the interview and I appreciate that conversation about how we get CC So maybe one of another possible way of dealing with that not that it's particularly easy either is that that Spreadsheet that she makes of her notes, which didn't include this person this time Which is why all of this frustration has arisen is that that normally includes all this information if we could get that Spreadsheet like regularly right because then that's not email correspondence, and it doesn't necessarily Say anything about the other appointments. They're looking for she'd have to be more obscure perhaps in the way She wrote her note on her spreadsheet, but if we just got and I mean we meaning the whole town council Got that spreadsheet regularly that said who was still in the pool and who wasn't but what I'm one of the things we've expressed here several times is that We haven't been ever given the opportunity and we haven't figured out a way to wrestle that back in terms of We don't get to evaluate the size of the pool before we decide to schedule interviews and mostly they've been time sensitive Right, so we've been well We're just going to go with what we got because the Charter says we got to do this but we've never been allowed to make that decision because we don't control the information flow and Similarly, we've not been allowed so since we don't have the CAFs We can't decide is that enough for this pool to go forward and to even start scheduling interviews We don't even get the CAFs until after the interviews are scheduled or at least have started being scheduled And so the practice was never gone over with us We were never given any input to it So the fact that we're not clear on it is because decisions were made without us. That's why this happened so I Agree that We need to be clear But I refuse to take blame for the fact that we weren't clear to staff because we were never given a choice in any of these Matters we were just told this was the process we were going to get and in fact We didn't we were never told the process will include us not telling you about people who withdrew and that when I talked to them On the phone. I won't give you those CAFs. I understand that as a process I get that it is a viable process the town manager likes But it doesn't anything to do with our process and we were never given the opportunity to discuss it that way So I agree that we need to figure out What did we think maybe one of the best ways is for us to come up with some ideas of what we could write down and Then take that as a report to council and say we think this is what you want, but we're not sure Is this what you want to? Because no matter what our future process is with privacy and diversity and Transparency this is still a problem because it's always going to come through staff We're not going to have people just like sending us individual emails to apply for things I don't think that'll ever be our process So I think having this larger conversation even before we get into the big. How are we going to revamp our process? Is a really good idea with potentially dragging the rest of the council into it too so that they understand where we've been all along Because I haven't been understanding that people are getting removed from the pool based on phone conversations prior to them getting to us No, and so I should have been clear on that. I mean, I think that this committee has made a Point of saying out loud that the CAFs The CAFs Once the select board had been dissolved. I don't know if it was before that CAFs had automatically gone To the select board for them to see but not to discuss Once a select board was done and town council was appointed the CAFs for where it stayed Right with the town manager and that's where they were and then for Oka to get them in the beginning They were handed out to us from the town manager's office. That is how this This began and this is what new counselors This is this is what we had and again we were Like you said we were in a rush situation This was just this was how it was when we started. I don't know that I know that this that Oka itself never made that We never said this is how we want it. We said we would like to we would like to we need to have them but we also we In retrospect now we know that we should have Been clear on what the pool was and that you know when we want to see them Like that that is what needs to be corrected. We're starting something out We didn't have an option in the very beginning now. We need to be really really clear about What we want and I agree with you that taking writing all this down and a timeline of when we get things and how much information we get to be something that we bring to the entire council and then Bring it to the town manager. Yes, is that clear? George I'm still trying to understand what Maybe it doesn't matter, but what went wrong in this particular case my understanding is that This was an applicant who who in his CAF or her CAF had applied to many multiple member bodies or expressed an interest in many multiple member bodies and In the course of the process Was interviewed and actually given an appointment so do I understand this correctly? No I'm just trying to understand. I don't this is maybe it's just so He was simply removed or she or he or whatever was removed from this process Because a member of staff Maybe somebody could explain it to me. Thank you So there there's essentially Within this actually to sort of issues that popped up, right? And so the first one was we should have seen this individual CAF in the pool Regardless of whether they chose to interview or not right because that's part of the pool that it appears was simply a clerical error That was a mistake That that CAF never made it into our pool. The second issue was was this person offered an interview and That seems to have been a miscommunication where staff felt as though in discussing a Prior committee appointment with this individual that individual then withdrew from consideration for future committee appointments That was not necessarily The impression of the individual and so I think there were two errors that occurred One was sort of clerical and one was a simple miscommunication and misunderstanding Where there was a conversation that occurred and there were sort of two interpretations of what came out of that So That that individual has now officially withdrawn from the pool To clear things up Has Angela told us that She's sorry So Okay, so this is what I'm gonna say is I think one of the issues is that we are saying that we would like to see the raw pool of people who applied and Then we need if if we agree that it is Angela or someone in staff who's the one who set up interviews We are saying that we need to see every single person that applied and similarly to some notes that she has given us We need to know when there was a phone call or an email and if this person decided to Withdraw for whatever reason before they actually you know got to interviews I think there's also the discussion on the table of Should we be the ones who are actually Scheduling our own into interviews that we need to see the entire pool for two reason in the beginning the whole entire raw pool For two reasons one is so that we can see actually whether somebody withdrew or not. What do we have for diversity? How are we doing with outreach and Before we schedule any interviews. We need to take a look and say, you know, we have six you know positions open we have four people or we have just six people and Before we go ahead if you're the interview designee You need to make the decision of whether or not you have a big enough or diverse enough pool before you start interviewing Because you have the right to say I don't think this is big enough or diverse enough And there needs to be more outreach before we can even start delving into interviews. So I think that's another thing that we're We're I believe I'm hearing and that we're trying to communicate Evan Yeah, so I think that our overall process has essentially two parts, right? So the first part is collecting CAFs right establishing the pool setting up interviews Then the second part is interviews on and that interviews on part has been the focus of our deliberations for the past six months And also the focus of council deliberations and a lot of public debate as well But that first part was never really we never talked about right and Alyssa's right It was decided for us and in some way was decided for us out of necessity and in some part because we were so focused on part Two of our process which seemed more complex that we were and it didn't have sort of a default that we were willing to accept For part one what I think we're recognizing now is The default isn't has some issues for us and we only know they exist because we've gone through it a lot of times You have to go through a process to see its flaws And so I think that I agree with what I think Alyssa said which is before we get to what it's everyone expects will be a Thorough debate of part two of our process given what we've been through we actually should start from the beginning And I I certainly have some ideas on how we can improve that That I think might seem to complicate things on the surface, but we'll simplify things down the road But I do think that's probably a future discussion Thank you It occurs to me and I Understand that Angela couldn't hang out with us all day because she's no doubt scheduling more interviews for other things But in addition to our many other responsibilities, but as I hear more about what happened here Think it's becoming clear and I agree completely with what Evan just said It basically in these two parts of our process the before interview and the after interview I think we all had a set of assumptions that I think actually Pretty widespread across the entire council as to what was happening before and they were they are now proven to be false and those Assumptions included the fact that if because we have seen notes that said people with drew I now conjecture that We have there have been previous people pulled out of our pool before they ever showed up on a spreadsheet Because they had that conversation Before it was interview time So they put in a CAF in January and then come March They decided to move to Florida and they called Angela and said by the way, I'm not doing that stuff anymore Stop asking me about general interest. I'm done And so she had that person also been a finance committee person now that we were scheduling finance committee interviews in June She just wouldn't have included them at all So they wouldn't have been on the spreadsheet as applied with drew in February moving to Florida The only people that we're getting I suspect now having now heard a couple iterations of this The only reason we're seeing some withdrawals is because those withdrawals were during After that interview process scheduling process started so We have no idea as you said we used to have these automated Distributions because that was shut off when the council started We have no idea what the original pool was for anything the pool that we've been provided was a pool of a moment in time And in fact While it's not exactly relevant I will bring up that I in a conversation with the town manager He mentioned that somebody applied after the interviews took place and I said well That's really interesting because we've had other things in town where we've had closing dates But we don't have a closing date for this So what if you just happen to apply three days after well? We're not going to go back and change our minds from the interviews But what happens to that person like how do we keep track of their new application? Like it's understood right that they stay on file for two years, right? It's like I'm just not sure about any of the process at this point And so I think those are just the kinds of things we need to enumerate You know and if somebody applies after we've made all the appointments and it doesn't look like we're gonna need another appointment for a year We still need to make it clear to them that they'll be in the pool At some point and that even if they withdraw Which I guess that's done to lead to the question of if somebody applies in January and then in February decides They're not interested in doing anything anymore for they now got a new job. Whatever Do we still want their raw CAF right? So whatever it might look like in the future at what point is there a cutoff? And I guess my my assumption is because it just seems much cleaner to me to just get it and then be told later They pulled out rather than picking some arbitrary moment in time at which it's no longer a viable CAF But I don't know everybody agrees on that But I don't it just seems complicated to me to try and pick a moment in time But it appears that a moment in time has been chosen for us and that was never our intention so I Agree with you on that I'm also agreeing with Evan that there's a lot of things that we need to talk about about this before the interview process I don't know. I mean this this should not have happened and You know, it's I think it you know It feeds into a lot of people's fears about whether or not, you know, their CAF is Indeed seen by the appointing authority where it goes what happens with it. I mean, this is something that you know, obviously we as town council members We need to know what's going on. We need to be informed and I I would also say that Most likely I think that we're all saying we need more not only did we need more control over it And I think that also we need to know what's communicated to people and and to me that also raises and an issue about things being Spoken and not having a written record of it And I know that when I called people for planning board and zoning board of appeals I also wrote an email and asked for a written response back so that I also had a written sort of receipt of The communication both, you know, I said per our the conversation of our phone call on yada yada yada date You know, this is what I would like to see so I mean that's something else I don't know how deeply we want to get into this other than to say it never should have happened And it should never happen again And we all know that and so then there will be a deeper discussion of of how we make sure As much as we can right and nothing is perfect, but That that doesn't happen again. We like to discuss This further at this time or should we all be very clear that this is something that needs to be discussed soon and communicated To town council and then to the town manager Okay, so nobody's nobody's fired up to start discussing right now. We feel like we've discussed enough right just at this time Yeah, so we like to make a point I think this conversation could go on for a while And I worry that last week the finance committee conversation got pushed back because we had so yeah So perhaps the segue then to the finance committee continued conversation is that It's not clear to me if this person has officially withdrawn or not and if they haven't and we believe that there is some As has been portrayed it appears that there was a difference of opinion on what was communicated like you were talking about your receipts issue that I Think we need to there was a statement made that the person has withdrawn I'm not clear if that's happened officially and I don't know how we find that out But that to me determines one of the conversations we're having about the Proposed appointments is are these the appointments we want and if we have somebody that still wants to interview Not the person who applied after the fact, but the person we're speaking of then that causes additional Things with that so Yeah, if if we don't have via email Proof of that I mean we can always do what we did last week, which is to pause briefly and find out From Angela so that that we could further our discussion on that because you're right. I think that Our further discussion about what to do about this and practical matters has to do whether or not this whether or not this person still Has requested or wants to be on None a resident non-voting member of the finance committee currently So Sarah There's Angela did say that in her conversation with him that he stated that that he was He accepted being on or that one committee was as much as he could do or something like that So I think she was saying that But that doesn't we didn't get anything Inright but she seemed to be saying that he said to her that he Was fine with the committee that he was Appointed to Listen, I'm just really concerned now at least two of us have done this. This is a private Application we're referring to he or maybe she or he as the default Can we just say applicant over and over again? Please because this is not about that individual No matter how we feel about that individual It is about an error in the process that we're trying to fix and I totally hear that that's exactly what Angela said and that is not what the applicant said in the subsequent conversation and so That what I'm what I'm trying to understand is then if the applicant has since withdrawn, you know just as this has played out because There were two issues here one was that we thought a withdrawal would be documented because we saw other withdrawals Document it it appears that there was no intention of I mean I'm not sure that it really was an oversight now Realizing more of this process that maybe it was long enough ago that it wasn't even supposed to quote show up on our spreadsheet The way the process is working upstairs versus the way the process was working in our imaginations So that was one issue, but the other issue was the miscommunication which we all know any of us can have right? I mean we've all talked to people and walked away from a conversation thinking two different things happened And so that still exists. So while it's true that Angela is utterly sure that that's what the conversation was That applicant is not utterly sure that that's what the conversation was And so till we figure out what that applicant has chosen as their path forward Then we can't make any offers one way or another if we don't know what they want Agreed so Angela has said that that was her understanding which is why She didn't put that particular That's why she didn't put the applicants Application forward to us and show that the applicant had withdrawn. So the question is now that the applicant The applicant knows that they're that their application was not put forward the applicant had it had expressed that They had wanted to Be part of the pool we don't know for sure at this juncture if that's been cleared up, correct Darcy I Can't help but wonder why this issue wasn't flagged when the CAS came out because this applicant's CAF was not in the pool of CAS So why didn't we flag it way back then? Because we didn't notice it How would we know how would we know when we? We never received this person's as far as I know their CAF for this pool How would we know to expect their CAF when the pool is completely private to us until we're given the CAF's? We would I wouldn't know but Evan flagged it When he saw the spreadsheet from from Angela because he knows the applicant So I'm just wondering why it wasn't flagged back when we got the CAF's My flagging of it had nothing to do with the spreadsheet we received from Angela and I didn't notice until I brought it forward to the committee It's not like I noticed and held on to it Something was said when someone realized there was an error But I think that what you're saying in dismay is a hundred percent true like unless someone Knows someone who applied an applicant knows an applicant who applied for something in that applicant says oh you finished that I Had applied for that I put in a CAF and I would I never was contacted and you never interviewed me like That that's why that's the weird and completely inappropriate Unprofessional way that we found out that this applicant CAF was not in the pool So we need to make sure that that never ever ever ever happens again, so it was flagged when It was a personal conversation where something came up, but it was flagged when When it was so yeah, it wasn't held on to and This wasn't a gotcha this was a oh my sort of situation And I think it had to be brought up because if one if this has happened to one person then naturally The town council has to wonder if it's happened again And it's sort of also part of our responsibility to have to make sure that it doesn't happen George So I would suggest to move on We have a conversation that we need to have at some point, but it's not today So can we move on but but but we have to decide today George if the pool that's been promoted If the three applicants that have been brought forward are adequate. How can we I'm not the one who said last time How can we do that if we know that someone wasn't offered an application or an interview? Who thought they were going to be offered an interview how how can we just say well, you know We'll talk about another time. It's in front of us right now. There are three people who've been brought forward This person was not considered So you had suggested if I understood earlier that we could stop for a moment and get an answer to that question This committee feel that's necessary I Don't see how we can act it. I mean we could act on a hypothetical, but we don't know the answer. That's our problem So why don't we take a brief recess all that's up to the chair? I will take a brief recess This being private again, which we were really attempting to take care of So I will read an excerpt from this Email that was sent to Angela Hi, Angela. It seems that it has come up as an issue. So I wanted to share with you explicitly that at this time having been appointed to and I'm redacting that I Do not think I would be able to serve on finance committee and therefore withdraw my application Please feel free to pass this information along to Oka or whoever the appointing authority is Thank You, Alyssa. So we know that this person has Withdrawn their application so that makes things a lot clearer. Okay. What was the date on that? So moving on in this process of doing finance committee We also have Andrew Steinberg here who is chair of the finance committee and he has requested to speak to us today So Andy take it away. Okay. Thank you, and I will be very brief And I want to make Start by saying that I am here as an individual counselor. I am chair of the Finance Committee. I am not speaking on behalf of the finance committee. This has not been Discussed or deliberated by the finance committee. So in no way could I be representing the committee and Today, so I just want to make that clear I Think that the Concerns that I have is a couple things what and it's generally as a counselor More than as a Member of the finance committee or chair of the finance committee those there are elements of that in my thinking too Counselor I Take very seriously as do all of you very obviously because of your service on this committee the role of the council on Things that are charged to the council for appointments whether it be the planning board designing board of appeals or in this Most immediate instance that you're talking about the finance committee resident members the committee and In order to do that we rely on Who are providing us with Assistance to help the thought process and to get us the information we need to do our job meaningfully And I analogize that to what I hope that the finance committee is achieving in I'm developing budget material and presenting it to you so that It assists you to do your work in Adapting a budget for the town According to the terms of the charter It's not the finance committee's role to create a budget that in finally approve it as the council's and I think that we're all working together as committees to achieve that Thinking that through then for the committee appointments that our council appointments In order to Do our work as counselors who are not members of the committee We need some information, but we obviously Don't want or need all information because You know, that's why you exist is to sort it out and what I think is most important is that we know Who applied What was the recommendations who was interviewed? What were the recommendations? And in recommendations not just Who was recommended and why they were recommended but at least a sense of Reasons that people were not recommended and it's very delicate because Unlike the budget you are dealing with people in people's lives and There's some sensitivity that has to be applied but It still Comes difficult when you know that very qualified people Have a more than the number of slots available have applied and It's impossible to get the thinking That we need without having a sense of Both who is recommended and who is not recommended And so it's a it's a delicate balance And I urge you to give some consideration as to how you're presenting that So that that's part of it. The other thing that I wanted to touch on briefly in Coming this morning is on the finance committee appointments in particular This is a really Unusual and unique situation. I think we've had a good discussion at the full council meeting about this Because It is the only committee That has people who are being appointed to the committee that are not counselors at least at this point we have no others and You know, what should be the role of the finance committee and Being able to Sort of properly assist in the screening and making sure that it works well for the functioning of the committee and assists the committee in the truest fashion And you have Recommended or at least tentatively recommend that I understand that it's still a work in progress But I've seen from the memo some people um and not Will ultimately not be recommending others and You know we As a council had made the decision that the finance committee would not be directly involved in the initial interview process I am going to recommend to you and I'm going to recommend to the full council when I have the opportunity that people who are ultimately recommended that The committee or at least a member of the committee the chair or somebody have the opportunity To meet individually with people who are being suggested so that we have an opportunity to Tell them what our expectations are here from them and what they're what they think that they want to offer and What the skills that In the knowledge that each of them brings forward and I think that Is an important part of a process that is so unique that We're trying to have the council appoint people To work with committees. We want that to be a positive experience for Um the committee process as a whole as well as for the people who are participating on it And I guess there's one other thing that I wanted to mention and You know, it's obviously because it was an open meeting and I voted and we all voted I you know that I was not In favor of the uh end results that were suggested for the planning board and council made his decision, which of course is what we as a council 13 of us are to do But the one thing that came up was is that I spoke very strongly as you know about An individual who is not being appointed who is an applicant and it was a question of term limits And how long that person Had served on the committee and whether that was A reason not to continue their appointment or to continue their service because the Knowledge that they had And I bring this up because there's one applicant Who I know very well. I worked with her And Mary Lou, I'm not gonna beat around the bush Mary Lou was on the old finance committee as a member when I was chair of that committee and I worked with her very effectively is in that capacity I With her very effectively is a select board member when she was chair of the finance committee that we had Not in favor of things that involve both Forts working together so somebody I know quite well and work with quite effectively but When you get into the question of why were there term limits As an issue for planning board and when is the time to say thank you for your service But your years of expertise While very valuable or something that is not a Quite a Dispositive factor and there are other factors of needing to bring new people into governance that in the way that Mr. Spitzman's Application was considered and ultimately decided that I urge you to At least consider why they came up and whether that applies to other situations and It's again Not about Mary Lou of the decision of the council is that She'd be appointed. I think that she has a lot to offer, but I do think that there is a need for consistency And I hope you'll take the opportunity to consider that So those are the things that I wanted to share and I appreciate all the work you're doing and I appreciate You're giving me the opportunity to just share that with you Thank you, mr. Steinberg Evan Uh Given that mr. Steinberg is here today as a member of the public. Are we allowed to engage in discourse? No, I don't I'm gonna just I'm going to ask the chair to reconsider that because he's not engaging as a member of the public because he's not here for public comment He was he asked to come and speak specifically about it was my understanding. Sorry. I wasn't there But it was my understanding. He offered to come and speak about finance committee either process or candidates It was not put off to public comment, which as our other audience member well knows is always at the end of our meeting So I don't think this is public comment. I think this is theoretically a place where We may choose if you allow to for us to Have some discussion But you can obviously limit it by time or whatever that is Absolutely fine. In fact, I would like to to begin Okay, so So The way the process is now is that All of town council will know Who applied because you get all of the CAFs We've of course just brought up a little bit that we need to talk about how the pool is actually put together But essentially right now you have those When our recommendations okas recommendations come to the entire town council You will also receive and you have received in the past the entire interview schedule that was put together by Angela I wanted to make it very very clear that when an interview designee goes to do interviews We have very carefully set up checks and balances one of the checks and balances is that The interview designee does not just send their Recommendations on to the town council First it comes here and then okah has the conversation of whether or not We feel that the applicants that have been brought forward are the ones that we feel are suitable so there There's never there there is that check and balance just because applicants are brought here Does not mean that okah will then bring the applicants that were originally brought forward to town council So I want to make that very very clear that when town council You know if they do you know read a memo that a designee has sent that that does not mean that that is our final decision Nor do we we rubber stamp and interview designee's decisions um I also will say that Town council itself as a whole has exhaustively talked about And okah itself has talked about Whether or not to discuss applicants Especially their names if they have not been brought forward It is the thinking of okah that We don't we will not bring up names of applicants who have Not been brought forward and I believe that we can have further discussion on that is part of that is the thought that Then it leads to the idea that you're saying You know I saw a On the list a wasn't brought forward. I want to talk about a which I think okah has decided that that's not appropriate so One of the things that I think that that also leads to is the fact that if that does happen If we if we do start talking about people whose names have not been brought forward then In in my estimation then the full council or even okah is actually doing what it says well, maybe It didn't need to which is well We don't need to redo the entire process that okah has already done I believe that what that actually says is that either You know if okah would like to you know brings that up You know I saw a and a wasn't brought forward I want to talk about a or if the full town council does and people are actually saying Yes, we do want to start this entire process over We don't necessarily Trust the information that you had and we would like to have all the information So in my mind that that is not part of our process When we are looking at the process again, we can we can ask ourselves what okah can say Do we think that this is true? Do we believe that we want to change this so that the entire process is open to the entire council So we can have that kind of People can be in interviews all of us and that we can all make a decision together But I don't think that that's where we're at Right now. So that's all I had to say about it and I will open it up to further discussion Evan Thank you. And so thanks for being here and some of the points you brought up I also intended to bring up But one of my questions For you since you are here is when you and kathy Came to us about a month ago. So ago There was a question about the meeting time and Whether or not their ability to meet between two and four p.m On tuesdays was sort of a litmus test would would you eliminate a candidate if they didn't have that option open? And my recollection of the answer, although this could be Blurry Was that it was not exactly we wouldn't necessarily eliminate someone just because they couldn't meet during that time If you were looking at the report that the okur designee put forth there's a sentence in here that says It was unfortunate that some applicants withdrew based on the necessity of having to be available from two to four p.m On a weekday and so it appears in the end that that was sort of a litmus test You can't be on the committee if you can't meet during this time Um It's clear that you see people in the cafs who You think were qualified and I and I have to question whether they might fall into that category of would be perfectly qualified But not available on tuesdays from two to four p.m Um, and this this whole this part makes me uncomfortable Um, to some extent people need to be able to be available when a committee meets, right? I mean we wouldn't have a point to summon to planning board If they couldn't meet when planning board meets at this other side Most of the town committees not all but a good number of them meet in the evenings um finance committee currently meets during the day when many people Are working a nine to five job and and Using that as a litmus test might necessarily Exclude anyone who doesn't have that flexibility In their schedule And I also want to recognize that town council committees are still sort of young and there's probably some flexibility And so I do have some concerns that there were perhaps Good applicants who were not considered and who had to withdraw Because they couldn't make what is a very inconvenient time slot for working people And so I'd love to hear as chair of finance Your your thoughts on that. Well, thank you. Um Actually, I was Not at that meeting cathy was at the meeting I believe but then even I am aware of what She said about scheduling. Um, which is what you're raising is a question um I think I would have to go back to the committee and present this issue to the committee not Pertaining to names because I actually don't even know which individuals you're referring to but um It is correct that we came to the time that we did after having discussions with The members of the committee who were then members of the committee and it was the counselors and We're trying to work around one member of the committee who has a teaching schedule in in addition and We we came to an accommodation of the meeting time that worked best for all But I don't think we gave serious consideration to nighttime meetings I think that there was just generally a feeling of exhaustion more than conflict that caused that decision to be made but If it was represented that there were Qualified applicants who could not be considered because of our meeting time That would actually be new information from the discussion at the finance committee and I would be glad to take that to them Um So that's helpful. Thank you So I just wanted to say that being there at that time There was a member of the finance committee here who was our president and My recollection is that she said that right now that time had to be maybe sometime in the future could be changed But she felt that that um people who applied need needed to stick to that schedule So we would have to go back to minutes for that and I'm wondering if anybody else Recalls one way or the other I only remember Kathy responded to that question with the idea of They should be there, but I believe I asked directly Do we have to disqualify anyone automatically who can't meet between Two and four on Tuesdays and the answer I remember receiving was no, we wouldn't automatically disqualify them But it does look like they were Either by the designee or they self withdrew From that, but I just I do have some concerns with that especially finance committee has historically met it Not me right and so Was a little bit more accessible And I believe also tomorrow isn't finance committee meeting at 9 30 in the morning Yes in those those That change is because Um You go ahead and use names No purpose not to dorthy teaches at polio community college and uh now that we're in a different season of the year Where she has a different teaching schedule because she's on the summer schedule We could meet tomorrow at 9 30 and accommodate all members of the committee And that was the best time to do so and um So we did make that switch for that purpose the question of evening meetings You know, I can I will bring this up tomorrow is uh an item 90 anticipated 48 hours in advance and uh just See what kind of response and uh, I will advise the chair After the meeting as to what our what the discussion was about it It's also in the handout that we provided for all the interviewees The the finance regular meetings take place on tuesdays in the town room normally from 2 to 4 so Oh, let's um exactly. Thank you for finding that dorsi people automatically didn't apply because of that litmus test because You wrote that litmus test. You may not have intended it as seriously as it was taken by the candidates, but A prepared candidate actually read In terms of what to do I just I just want to follow up on that because we did I would argue that finance committee is unusual Absolutely in that finance committee was already given Way more influence in this process than any other committee has been given and I grant you it's a town council committee But at the same time planning board and zba all we asked All we allowed them to do was to give us characteristics to look for as you were as the okadesign was evaluating people Instead finance committee. We said We will take questions that you write that are different than our questions We will let you write a handout that includes your specific meeting time Which causes people to take themselves out of the running either reading that ahead of time or during the meeting so we've done all those things and As you indicated There was a four to nine vote that this process was the process we were using And so obviously you are welcome to bring up any alternatives to this process at this point But I can't understand why finance committee needs any additional special treatment over what finance committee has already received I agree that it's unfortunate that if you weren't adamant about The time period that people took themselves out of the running But I also just think it is realistic that of course you have to work with the councilor's schedules I mean you don't have a choice. I mean we've run into that with all the different committees. We're all on It is Strange and I pointed I remember pointing that out to our president that it is strange that so many of our meetings Are during the day now because that's not very accessible to working people But at the same time it's also trying to make the working people on the council's Schedules work. So I totally get that finance committee had to do what it had to do to make it work for finance committee But I don't think it makes any difference at this point to say Well, well, maybe we're more flexible than that because we already cut people out of the process with the handout You gave us to give to them. We didn't write that we wrote that handout for planning board and zba You wrote the finance committee wrote that handout for us to use here because we wanted to be clear That because this was a council committee We were trying our best to include the finance committee as best we could Given that the process we have we can't have two counselors involved in the interviews and I find it That all being said it will not surprise anyone that I find it extremely Adjectionable the idea that we would make a recommendation to town council as okah as we have been with everything else and then The finance committee would say Yeah, so refer that to us so that one of us can meet with the person or we can ask them to come to our meeting I just find that bizarre, but that's a different Conversation right when it comes up at town council. We'll deal with it then So I would also like to say they get you the time was discussed and we all knew that there would be a handout That would be put out to everyone, you know saying what time each committee met and My understanding is is yes that was in the handout and that people do make decisions on that I had people who took themselves off of you know Zoning Board of Appeals because of the set time It's it does seem a little unusual to me that finance committee set this time and I I do specifically remember Our president saying that this was an important at least for now that this was the time that was kept at all it could change later That we would we would go back and say hey, well, you know, maybe we could be Flexible, I mean, I guess we I guess we could but it also seems Odd because then it almost seems like well We're saying that there were people that weren't brought forward that maybe, you know, we really want to consider and so Do you understand what I'm saying like that? It seems a little strange Like we and he could bring that to the finance committee they could decide on times because I do agree with Evan that a lot of of Committees that have residents they need to meet At a time that people are not working But it also seems a little strange in in some ways, so Andy It's my understanding that people who chose to apply for the committee Were operating off of a general announcement that we were looking for citizen members to Participate in the committee resident members this participate in the committee but that The time was not a factor in that initial announcements and people made a choice to apply And then this question of the time arose later in the process and then caused some people to be apparently Not Considered and so I don't think it's too late to go back and obtain that information and then to get it to you to consider because it's not Nobody didn't apply because of the time The time screening happened after So I guess that was one thing as far as the point about Doing it Meeting with people which is not a part of the interview process It's really no different than if People were are recommended for say the planning board because that was the other Thing that we another committee we've dealt with and a member of the council On their own made a phone call or had personal knowledge and that was outside of the interview process That he was in before And contributed that to the discussion That can happen I don't think that's anything that The council has said that Would not allow that to happen Who would be Unusual so I I I guess that I don't see What the problem that the council should have If there are three people who are recommended and a member of the committee itself Feels it's appropriate to do so Wanted to have that call Wanted to make calls and just say what we what is it that you think you have to contribute Here's what we're thinking You give them have a really informed discussion And I think it would Enrich the process not the track from the process and I don't think it's inconsistent So the first thing I would say that ok does screen by time We ask every single committee when you meet and one of our interview questions is is do you understand the time commitment That is required and the work commitment that is required for this committee and the committee meets at blah blah blah time And we do screen by that because if somebody says I can't come then we say Sorry, I mean that's something that we talked about so I'm not saying that we you know We we you know you couldn't ask but I want to make it very clear that the interview designee screening by time was not unusual As far as I know we all did we we all did that did you I don't know if there's anyone who If someone says if we say planning board meets at seven o'clock on a Friday Can you meet on seven o'clock on a Friday and they say no, I would need you to change your schedule I'm just wondering my understanding was that we wouldn't say Oh, you can you're a fabulous candidate. I can talk to the rest of the planning board And I feel like they could change their time That's really what we're saying and though I know that this is a new finance committee What we were told was this is the time we meet this is what meet this is what works for us We need to keep this for a while and if people Cannot come right now. Well the way it is we we can't do that. We do screen by time and and date We do if you can't make a meeting time when it's an established meeting time for five other people Melissa yeah, I mean just following up on that. Yes, I do understand this is a council committee at the same time I can't tell the planning board Oh, you could have had this fabulous candidate if you would all be willing to switch your meeting time Which involves not only those people, but also because they have significant staff support Unlike all council committees They have significant staff support because the legal things that they do and I'm not going to go to the planning board and say By the way, you could have had somebody really good, but you should change like that's not We can't do that and so to do that now seems really weird Especially given that you know, I mean unless we started the whole thing over again I mean there were people who saw that handout there were also people even before handouts existed Which is something we added to this who could actually look and see all the posted meetings. Huh? I can't go to those times. I'm not going to bother to apply not everybody applied in december some people applied more recently once meetings actually started taking place and They looked at the schedule and said that's not going to work for me. I mean That's all of our practical reality, right? Is that unless you're starting a brand new thing You really can't be the one that comes in and changes the meeting time. Unfortunately All right, so that I guess that's what I want to say is that that is the practical reality So that is something to keep in in mind for Finance committee, you know and if indeed you want to say that we meet Every friday at 7 p.m. Then that would be something that people would know But I I don't know that anyone could actually apply for a committee not knowing when they would have to be there Because subsequently they could work a night shift and have to be gone by 9 when that's the time of the meeting So people need to know when a regular meeting is is is what i'm saying So a finance committee wants to say nope We all agree that we're going to start meeting wednesday nights at 6 30 p.m. And that's what we tell people but you have to tell people what time and I do think that that If I had a job and I met at 6 p.m I had to go to work at 6 p.m. And that's usually when meetings were I wouldn't Say well, I'm going to apply and then see what happens. Maybe they could meet at a different time So I'm only coming this up from a practical sense Yeah It's be real quick about the response on this Um, I don't think that any of us in the council Discourse, which we're saying that you the committee once it has a time that that is a factor and their availability Also, um, also I'm saying is this that We're in the new process the finance committee Did not have a strong conflict. It was sort of the Preference type of thing about not meeting at night That if the Information came that there would be more candidates who would have been considered Had the time availability been Greater Would Get feedback from the committee as to how they'd react to that It seems to me that would be useful information It is actually very helpful to we're having this discussion without my having any knowledge of Who candidates were who said that I can't meet at night because I'd rather not know that and have the discussion Because I really think it's a principal discussion then not a Around specific candidates, but the other factor is is that if we got down to the point where You only had three people left because Of the time constraints, I think that is a real concern Where are we heading with this? I'm not clear Ever since I brought it up I can I can speak to that right and so We have a difficult Process as okah because we cannot bring up Names who are not recommended Right, and so if there are people whose caps I see who are not in this recommendation who I feel Should be qualified. I cannot say why wasn't so and so recommended What makes that more difficult for me is the statement in the report that says that some candidates with A good time slot are not here because they couldn't make the 2 to 4 p.m. Time slot And so my immediate question in my head is are these people who I'm seeing as good candidates not here Because they couldn't make that time slot, right? So that's that's my question and I can't really ask that question Which is the unfortunate part of our process Because if there are good people Who couldn't make that time slot Then I go back to what my impression was and it sounds like perhaps I was mistaken Over do we disqualify people who can't make a meeting time? I understand we would never ask planning board or zba to change their long-standing meeting time for a candidate But my impression also was that finance committee was a bit more flexible And in case we're seeing this flexibility as one of their members is now on a summer schedule And so they're changing their meeting time, right? And so here we're saying always meets 2 to 4 they have to meet 2 to 4 But tomorrow they're meeting 9 30 because they have the flexibility to change to accommodate One member and if there is flexibility in finance committee Then it would make me uncomfortable If someone withdrew who would have otherwise been a really good candidate because they that was interpreted as a hard Cannot be changed time So Darcy I think this is a completely this was a completely foreseeable problem Um, and we would definitely foresee that there would be people that would not be who would withdraw because of the time So, um, I'm kind of flummoxed as to Why we're spending so much time on this when we knew all of this beforehand And this this is a super predictable problem So I you know, um, I feel like we should Um Move on So one thing I'm going to say is that one of the things that we've talked about is consistency and I harp on that all of the time um What I will say about this is the way this is being presented right now um I think suggests that What people are saying is um This is what it sounds like it sounds like If everybody had agreed that the three applicants were the best we wouldn't be arguing about time I feel like I understand that, you know, what you're saying is well now, you know, maybe things could be more flexible a finance committee Maybe they didn't nail it down We could we could look at other people, but it also semismax of saying I'd really like to look at other people And maybe we could be flexible now. That's what I'm going to say I feel like that this is what it's going to look like On the surface what I will say is that finance committee wants to ask their members and wants to nail down a time I would say that that's what I would like to see For consistency Finance committee would have to say we meet at this time if they're not willing to say that they're meeting at one time every week All the time Then you know Then I would say please put on your charge or what you're going to have us Send to or you're going to say to people who are interviewing that Right now time is up in the air. So if you you know, if you want it, you can take it, you know, and then you know We're very flexible. We're very fluid finance committee doesn't meet on a certain time every week You know, we sort of work around people's schedules and that's what we could tell people but I I think that in the future we need to Make sure that when we're writing down and presenting a meeting time to people who applicants who are interviewing We need to Be specific on that. Does that does that make sense? Evan I so I agree with Everything you said in the latter half of your statement. I do want to make my position very clear based on what was just said My concern over this time has nothing to do with the people who were put forth In fact, when I first read this report I read the process part first Because I had some questions and I saw that line And it immediately triggered the conversation That we had had so Darcy's comment of this was foreseeable. I agree, which is why I brought it up In our what what meeting is this 5 13 on may 13th I asked finance committee that question because I foresaw this problem. So You know, this isn't something i'm thinking of now and my statement was Is this a litmus test because if so we are de facto disqualifying anyone who works a nine to five job And if that's what we're doing if we're saying no one who works nine to five can serve on finance Then we can say that right and my impression was that wasn't what we were saying at the time. So Yes, this was foreseeable. I brought this up well over a month ago And my concern with this has been from the beginning. It's not just in response to the names that were put forth So I think the quandary also is that the fact that we asked finance committee to write Something and this is the time that they wrote. So what i'm going to say is again I'm not saying that what this outward or impression is is true I'm just saying I feel ginky because It could look this way to people and I I would say that then we therefore have to say to all chairs of committees You know, if this is the time you meet we need to know Even if it's hey, we're really flexible. It could be any time That needs to be very clear at the very beginning Andy yeah I appreciate the conversation. We are in the learning process as the council In all of our committees are in the learning process because we've just not done this before What happened in may a discussion that happened in may was not a good time for the finance committee because we were meeting twice a week and trying to complete a report on what is the major task of the committee with the june 1st deadline and uh So the timing that It apparently came up may have interfered with being able to get it back to the committee From the two members of the committee who are apparently involved in the prior discussion And that's just part of this unfortunate learning process Darcy Did you want to know so Right, I mean applicants need to know some vague idea of a meeting time even if it's flexible that's still true It's unfortunate that this communication worked out the way it did for all the various reasons we've discussed but there is You know, even though we're talking about a much different process in the future the process we have right now Involves us at oakah evaluating three people if it turns out those three people can't meet at the same time The finance committee can meet then like we're kind of wasting our time So we need to be clear on just what the level of flexibility is so people either don't take themselves out of the mix Or leave themselves in the mix so they make that decision I do want to touch on the fact that because Andy was kind enough to give us the heads up I'm sure he wouldn't characterize it this way But I will characterize it this way that some members of the finance committee don't trust the oakah process That now we know that this is going to come up again at town council Even though we've talked about it numerous times at town council on how to vote about it And so now there's going to be another discussion about it And so I think part of where we're going with this Darcy is that at some point we'll want to discuss What our response to that is right? So rather than it being a surprise the night that it comes up at town council And oak has not had a chance to discuss it since we know it's in the air We could arguably talk about that next time we meet because we're gonna run out of time today But the other part that I wanted to ask about because we want to be prepared for that conversation Around the same well speaking for myself on oakah. I believe this it's like if we know there's a proposal in the air We ought to be prepared to speak to it. So that's useful information The other thing I wanted to ask about on a completely different note Is that given that we have a member of the finance committee here Given that we gave the the finance committee the opportunity to write questions to write the handout to talk to us about things Given where we are with the finance committee I believe I've probably made it clear in the past that I think the idea of Non-voting resident members on this committee was a stupid choice to put in the charter I'm not going to characterize it any other way. It was stupid And I understand the theory behind it in terms of oh well, there might be experienced finance people Yeah, those are called staff members. That's what you have for that And then you also elect people who know something about finances the idea that Somehow we're going to find the magic right fit given the timing of the meetings Of non-voting residents is really frustrating to me. I find this very unsatisfying to try and make this match up I'm especially concerned that if One of the points if not the only point of putting it in the charter in the first place Was to help the town council Who might be substantially new at doing finance? Well, guess what the town council is done The finance committee has already done a budget process. I mean we're in the throes of it right now So having somebody with 25 years of experience in town in town meeting finance committee no longer seems especially relevant to me I'm not sure I would if we had done this in february Right if a whole lot of things were different if we'd done this in february I could see more purpose to say oh my gosh We're still early, you know relatively early in the process Let's bring in some old finance committee members some of which probably were coming to meetings anyway And put them on this Now that there's been a cycle. I'm not sure I any longer see Substantial I'm not talking about the individuals who all of which I've worked with it's the ones that were on finance committee before I'm not sure I see the purpose anymore of leaning on that expertise And so while we have a finance committee member here I just wonder if they'd had a chance to talk about that because of where we are in the process Because I know we had to realize at town council at some point that something had to give And this was one of the things that gave us that we didn't rush and try and get this one done the way we had to rush to get others done Darcy I think I would have to say that um I definitely think there's a reason for for the non voting members of the finance committee and I I wish that they had been kept at four instead of three and that I think that What we're sometimes losing in this whole process is the intent of the of the charter authors In putting this in you know, I'd be really interested to hear from the Charter commission members who wanted to put this in what their intent was for these resident members because um on the one hand they can be uh giving their expertise and sharing it with the finance committee as far as helping them along but another Reason may vary will be that they want residents there to be able to be Asking good questions about the town manager's budget Um with whatever they're interested in So really, you know, representing residents In the finance process. I'm guessing that that was probably The reason that they were included So we've already heard from the finance committee and we've heard from the town council president And I believe that the people who have written this have also weighed in and from what I understand that I believe are in our minutes is that The they the not the resident non voting members of the finance committee were actually there to aid In the work of the finance committee, so I will just as Alyssa said since we have someone from finance committee here Would you like to speak to that candy? I think I do not know what was in the minds of the Charter commission in making It is a possibility I think it was As I look at the charter There are some things they put in there that you shall do this and there are other things like rank In rank choice voting is one of them. I think that it's an expectation that we will do that Participatory budgeting Is a decision that the council will make after getting a commission Recommendation as to what a process would look like But we're not required to do that and this was in that category That we're In a learning process that gave us the option We made a decision very early on as a council to go ahead and To do that and put it into the committee charge Whether we would do that now and revisiting a visit different question And I don't you know, it's really a council decision that would have to be made as to whether to Not continue that process I don't think it belongs to any of the committees Okay, so this is this is what I'm hearing is that I When we discussed this charge and we discussed the terms Council itself had said this is what they want When we asked the finance committee, what do you see the the role of resident non voting finance committee members we were told explicitly that they were not to be They were to be people who are already up to speed and that they were to be help mates And that's what we needed to keep in mind that that is what I know when we asked finance committee to write their handout and give us a time and a meeting time We were not told you could put any old time, although I realize what Evan says is that you know We reluctantly I believe that Kathy did say well, we'll know, you know, we we could you know consider something else But here's the time that was that was put there So what I'm hearing now is that people are saying well, maybe we maybe we don't maybe council should reconsider whether we want these people maybe maybe Find finance committee wants to decide and reconsider what time they meet And I find this a little confusing and also somewhat frustrating and um I would imagine that We did screen by time So at this point, I you know, I don't know how much more discussion is actually going to be fruitful because I think we're all dancing around the fact that Perhaps people don't want any of these, you know, we haven't even gotten to discuss names that my my my feeling is here with the discussion that's being had is um people want something else and I would say at this point Do we need to have a vote on whether or not we allow finance committee to pick a different time or say that it's a different time Do we want to have a vote on whether or not we go back to the very beginning? Do we want to have a vote or discussed whether we should bring the whole idea of whether or not we should have Resident non-voting members even on what what are people actually saying? What is my what is my committee saying to me? I don't think we can change the charter We can't I mean the full the full you know the full council right Evan of course we can't change the charter we could and i'm not i'm not saying I'm not saying that we or the charge and i'm not saying this is not me advocating for that But we in theory could send a recommendation back to the council that says we've discussed and we actually don't think there should be Non-voting members that would be a weird thing to do We have a proposal in front of us. We have a recommendation in front of us. It feels to me as though We probably should Discuss the recommendation and vote on it Since it's in front of us But you're right There are like a number of issues that we are sort of dancing around that none of which have a clear resolution and it might just be that In the end that's part of our report to the count I imagine this is going to be a lengthy report given that we've spent more meetings on finance committee than on any of the other committees We've appointed as far as the actual recommendations And maybe these things are just put forth To the to the council in our report regardless of what the vote is at the end Alyssa I guess i'm i don't i don't want to mischaracterize what you said, Evan But I guess i'm leaning toward a sort of hybrid report too depending on how our discussion of the three candidates turns out candidates we keep not talking about Is that we could make a recommendation either way at this point and still say We had this lengthy conversation where we realized the timing is different the timing in terms of What people's expectation for what the the role these people would play There's still a difference of opinion on what role these people would play And there's still the question of could more time be Accommodated I just do want to be clear for everyone out there in tv land that the charger says may include members of the public So the town council could vote to remove them from the finance committee charge There's absolutely no obligation to have them accept that early on as mr. Steinberg said We made a decision to include them because why not include people of course, we're going to include people It's just that as time has wound out it has looked a little different But I think that our report can cover all of these issues No matter what we decide about these three candidates because we have questions and we might not necessarily come to a resolution on a recommendation for either people or process But we can reflect all that in our report so that town council doesn't feel like they free litigate Perhaps every single aspect of it at the meeting Because to some extent some of this might just have to be thrown to the council So I've made quite a scene about the time today, right? And I recognize that and so we could in theory put forward these names to the council But with that discussion finance committee could discuss this Tomorrow and the five members of finance could come back and say well hold on You know and then that then the council could in the end say well, maybe we need to Go back right refer this back I think as long as we're accurately reporting the debate we had and and we're fortunate to have Andy here today with us because then he can relay This conversation back to finance and their meeting so that on our July 1st meeting They might come back with with something to say as well So in hearing that I I would agree with you Evan So I I'm going to say this and then we can have discussion if anyone thinks that I'm incorrect I would then with a discussion that we have had today Um, you know, we can take a vote on the the people that have been brought forth, but then I would then ask Um, Andy to bring to his meeting tomorrow two questions One is about the time of meetings and the second would be whether or not finance committee At this point having already gone through a budget cycle now still does feel that they would like to have three Resonant non-voting members on finance committee. I think that those would be two things that in when the town council decides to elect these people or or Or appoint these people or not would be is that what we're saying? That's elissa with the caveat that with that second question the timing one's easier Surprising given how much time we've spent on it But do they still need these three people and what do they mean by that? Right because that's the difference It's like what do they need them for because what they need them for should Actually because we could be despite all our work with finance committee who we worked with much more closely than we have any other body We may not be picking the people finance committee would pick based on what they believe they need right now and so I get that that's super awkward but if they have a strong opinion about that that does feed into our Whole shebang right just like if we hadn't had this long discussion We could have made a decision today taking it to council and finance committee members could have each voted against it And said go back because we don't think you understood the criteria That can always happen So I mean we can do that And I want to be really really clear at this point that when when we sent Darcy out to interview these people Finance committee gave us When they met finance committee did sit in front of us two members of finance committee And say explicitly what we are looking for is people who are already up to speed who can aid us That is what we were told and the Number and the term length were also explicitly clear So Darcy did Darcy did her job with every single thing that the finance committee and oca gave her I will say that I feel a little bit flummoxed that any of these things came up right now But it's not my decision If oca believes that these things if if we So I do feel flummox. So I'm hearing that people Even though we we have this information. We had this information Darcy did her job I'm hearing that that oca would would be open to as part of our report and as part of the further conversation and helping town council make its decision that we would like to ask andy to bring Back to his committee for Discussion and then a final decision to bring to town council. What times they need Do they feel that they still Need want these three members And then the third question is now having been through a budget cycle What do they think the role now Is of these three people Acknowledging that these are all things that we knew that now are changing correct These are things yes, I'm not sure why we have to act on this The finance committee wants to Act on them. They can just do it on their own. I'm not sure why they will be they will be We would take a vote today It would be reflected in our report to town council that we had this discussion And then finance committee would talk about these these three things and then they would bring these things up in the vote when The vote came up discussion came up on appointing these people at a full town council meeting I just don't understand the necessity of our voting on it We're not the discussion, right? So we're not going to vote on it But we could vote on people we are simply saying that we by consensus are asking andy to do this in for the town council discussion Yes Does that do those questions seem clear and do you feel like it? Yes, it does and I think you and I don't want to take work I'm right now Okay Thank you, andy So now we get to talk about the candidates And i'm supposed to leave at noon. So i'm hoping we can finish by noon Please make that a hard stop Yes, I will so also we need to do election of officers. So here's my question to you if noon is our heart Yes, and I also want to be clear for um The recommendations there's actually two discussions we have to have about finance One is the people themselves and the second are the terms Because I think one these probably need to be staggered terms And we did not uh the recommendation doesn't include a recommendation for staggering So that's something we have to discuss Well, also you also remember that finance committee members per the charge Are recommended for two years however finance committee requested in their charge revision that the first Ones this first batch would be appointed for three years That was removed from the charge by gol and gol said If you want this first batch of appointments to be three years Then that can be part of the Motion that's made that will will bypass the normal appointment If I feel as though one I feel as though that oka needs to be able to have a recommendation on that Do we actually recommend that these people are appointed for? Two years per the charge or three years per the request of finance committee And then if they're staggered we also need to assign those so our conversation is bigger than just These three people it also includes a discussion of terms So this is what I would propose is that um, I think that the the terms need to be discussed before we discuss the people And obviously we're not going to get to that. I don't believe we're going to get to that vote today I think we're not going to I mean we can get to the vote I think we could Say that we are going to finish this discussion at quarter of so that we can elect a new chair And I can say what I need to say about stepping down um So we can discuss terms I would say right now with a hard stop of that at a little bit before quarter of that's what i'm proposing So do we would we like how would we like to do this? Melissa so I think and I appreciate what Evan said about the terms and the history of that I think the thing that's been different for us up until this point is that we haven't had choices Except that we've known what the term lengths were and then we chose who to put in those term lengths correct We were not given a structure and so with rank choice voting and participatory budgeting In fact, we had to change it on the fly at town council because it wasn't accurate And so it's great that we will address this in our report to town council For a recommendation I I think a number of issues are here one of which includes I of course as you all know from the council discussion I totally disagree with the three-year term for these individuals. I think that's entirely inappropriate and They're not elected. They're not town employees. It makes no sense that they need to serve for three years That being said Whatever we choose and I whether it's one two or three years There's no obligation that we can't offer a one-year term to someone because we do typically stagger terms And so even if you one says well terms are two years long There's always somebody that has to get a one-year term if you're going to stagger terms anyway So I would say that we have every right to If we can come to some sort of majority agreement anyway, even if not unanimous agreement Of what we would propose as our motion for these various people But then we would but then of course it's up to the council whether or not they want to amend that Right, so we might make the case for one thing and then the finance committee members make the case for another thing And then town council decides But I agree that this is an unusual one that we need to go ahead and just go ahead and lay out Why we want to do what we want to do All right, so um, then I would say let's think very carefully about how we would like to make this motion And would someone like to make the motion that has to do with term length Are we thinking three two and one? No, I think what would be is uh three years or It would be two years, but they would be staggered meaning that since we're starting this from the very beginning and there there is no history of Resident non-voting members of the finance committee that by that definition Some people or a person would get a one-year term so that things turn over in A more Somebody help me with a word A more appropriate a more solid Way so that you're not losing everybody all at once at the very very beginning, right? So we're starting this from scratch. We would say two-year term or three-year term And then staggered and then mentioned the staggering, right? That's what I would say so I mean a motion could be that we recommend that the non-voting The resident non-voting members the finance committee be elected for Two years with Initial staggered That's where I'm not sure George we've been told by the committee that The learning curve is steep a one-year appointment to such a body to me doesn't make a lot of sense Unless the person that's given the one-year appointment is someone who already has served On that body for some period of time This is in other words one year you simply learn kind of the basic process And we've been asked I think very clearly to consider at least a two-year term Three years actually is what we've been asked But the point is that there's just in a tremendous learning curve here and to put somebody on this body for one year They can be reappointed fine. And so maybe that's what we'll think but it just doesn't make any sense By the time you're one year is up. You may have just begun to learn how this whole process works and you're done So there's a reason why three years was requested If we feel it's too long fine But then you get into the staggering terms of one year and two years And one year makes no sense to me for this body unless a person is being reappointed and has already served and has lots of experience Otherwise a minimum of two years seems to be simply out of respect for the person putting off They're going to put all this time and work into this body and then they're done and that makes no sense to me So at least two years seems to be Reasonable and I can understand the request for three People are making a a very serious commitment of time and effort and I think the term is supposed to reflect that I don't understand a one-year appointment to a body like this Alyssa So i'm presuming then george and I am not saying this tongue-in-cheek or sarcastically That you believe that all town counselors should get reelected after their initial two-year term because they put so much time and effort and investment into learning the process right because I I appreciate that this is hard But all this work is hard and I don't understand why three I get why two I get why not one except for Somebody who's experienced But I don't get why we would want it to overlap with counselor terms that to me is the only reason to do a three year And if that's the impetus to do it and then I can disagree on that reason to do it But I can't agree with it just because it's A long time a length of time that people need because now we know that elected office is two years in this town Even though we're very used to three. So I just I don't want it to overlap future town councils So I would just say that I ended up Evan So I guess so we have to stagger these appointments, right? It doesn't matter whether it's two or three And right It doesn't say in the charge. We have to I know it's gel's recommendation, right that we do that the rules don't say we actually have to I don't I couldn't find it This is okay. Have to but it is our general practice. So I guess the first come so it might make sense to separate Well, I don't know But to separate the two debates we're having which is staggering I know staggering and then three versus two So the charge the charge for finance committee is that everyone is appointed for two years The recommendation was this first set will get three so that it outlasts our current current term And so I think that ochre should issue a recommendation about whether we want to actually Do that and so maybe we can keep our conversation narrowly focused on Knowing that every other group of appointees in perpetuity will get two year terms Do we feel like it's Necessary or appropriate for this first batch to get three year terms so that they outlast this first council Which is the reason for doing it. It isn't the three-year terms wasn't it takes time to get up and running The three year the reason for the three-year terms was it will outlast this first council And so that going forward then they'll always be Overlapped it won't be that finance committee members will end of a counselor's end Because the the idea is they have two year term the de facto is two year terms Which is that it's considered enough to get up and running. So do we want to Do that So elvis has spoken about what she feels and I would say that I I tend to agree with her I Although, you know, we've had a great deal of discussion about The specialness and the amount of Knowledge and expertise that people need to have on finance committee I I feel uncomfortable And I don't really think that it's appropriate that we would appoint someone Who is not elected for An extra year after, you know, a council has come and gone that seems Because you're also saying I mean and what is that saying are we also saying that because it's mostly a finance committee is is run is Put together of counselors so Are you saying that you think that that counselors there there wouldn't be enough counselors who would have enough information I to Actually run finance committee and that also makes me feel uncomfortable because I don't think that I would say that I myself would not vote for a three year term George I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other but what I Get the feel for this is that Desire for some continuity across Electoral transitions so that's what I got from the recommendation that You'll have a change of council members And but there will be a at least some continuity on this particular body that would Be there during that period of transition would provide some What call institutional memory or some level of just experience with the budget process It's a it's a complicated process. It's it's not something you just pick up I'm still struggling to understand it and I've been looking at it for six months Um, and so so in so far as I think there's a case to be made Maybe it's not a very strong one is that that having a three-year term initially initially would provide this continuity During the next election cycle After that my understanding is it's two-year terms, correct? So it mirrors in some sense Our position that we have been granted three years We've now gotten through six months We've been granted three years, but from then on it will be two years So I don't have a problem with this special case If people feel that it's not a good enough reason fine Let's keep it at two, but I think there was a reason And that's the one that I that I can glean is that provides some measure of continuity And if anyone can think of another reason that would be great, but that's the only one I have Could someone explain what it would mean say we we decided to do three-year staggered terms Um Only one person well, we would that would make it easier to have one one one two one three But then only one person would ever get three years Right because after that everybody would get two Is what I'm thinking it just would be a little bit easier To assign them if there were three years for three people Um George Staggered terms is simply something we can consider. It's not required. It's just gel. I thought it was a good idea Evan You're on gel George gel, I don't think Discuss staggered terms the reason I was bringing up staggered terms is we very often appoint people to staggered terms So that there is sort of that regularity um So any multiple member body under 9.12 C I think has to be Appointed staggered terms however I pulled up the definition of multiple member body because I was like, let me just check this and it does say not including the town council And my assumption would be a town council committee Even if it has appointed resident members is still part of the town council and therefore not a multiple member body And therefore not subject to 9.12 C so it seems like there is no legal obligation for us to stagger the Resident appointments, however, we could still recommend That we do so right because what that might do is say let's say we do not do the three-year terms, right? And let's say we do two-year terms So and let's say they all start july 1 right So if two people have two-year terms and one person has a one-year term well that means that Someone else has they either have to be reappointed or someone else is reappointed july 1 2020 Now that person has a de facto two-year term which will go beyond the current councils So the staggering could be a way Of having this sort of continuity across councils without having to do this one three-year thing But we don't have to do it and that's why I said maybe it makes sense to separate these discussions But maybe it doesn't is we have two options, right? One is three versus two and one are staggered versus not staggered and we can cobble together Any recommendation of the two of those also recognizing it will just be okas recommendation and the council could say no We're going to appoint everyone to three-year terms No staggering right, so we're just we're here to figure out. What do we as the appointments committee recommend as the best way going forward So i'm just going to put in that That is the primary function of staggering terms is that you you are you are never like clearing the decks and taking Everybody off a committee at the same time and putting all new people on, you know I mean of course people could be reappointed But there's also There's also that possibility that you wipe out an entire committee and then put all new people on So staggering is a way to make sure that you have like evan said some continuity in people who stay You know longer than than others Yeah, I think yeah, do you want to make a motion? so do we have some sense that so We know that elissa and sarah Are not on board with three-year terms George is amenable to it. I guess I haven't said where I stand on it with my personal belief is it seems unnecessary to do this one-off three-year term I understand why we did it the council, although I think that was part learning curve But it was also part don't elect them in 2018 and made them run for re-election in 2019 Because we die But to me if the if we're looking for some continuity I mean even if we appoint every one of two-year terms no staggering that means that everyone is up for appointment or replacement and july 1 2021 Which means they'll still be from then until january where they'll be working with this council And then potentially from then on like they'll be there's still be like six months in which they're working with this council Sort of and transition before they go into the next council. So I To me the three-year terms is necessary So we we could we could call the question and vote on what we think about this We could either do it for the term lengths and then discuss the staggering or we can do it in one great big bunch elissa So I move that whoever we end up recommending to town council that non voting resident finance committee member terms Are a maximum of two years and like I'll second that Okay discussion hearing none All those in favor I It's unanimous. That's what we have term all right, so we have one hurdle and um, I Keeping to the the 12 o'clock hard stop. I don't know that I think that maybe we know we still need to ask for public comment I think we need to decide on whether you know, obviously, we're meeting next monday, right? I mean, I think we should stop the conversation on this now Yes, elissa So my problem with that is that I don't know what I'm going to know between now and next monday That's going to change the conversation for next monday. So I wonder if we can each express briefly individual thoughts about Whether or not we're comfortable with the three candidates that have been recommended because if we aren't Then we should be asking somebody to look we should be asking them says you need to look at them And if we are then we can just say yeah, we got time next week, but I'm great All right, so we have four minutes We have four minutes and we definitely can do that I can start with me and say that I um in the spirit of Consistency when it comes to term limits I have some issues With some of the people being brought forth because I I feel that they are they are not only not They are incredibly competent but again For all the same reasons that I've brought up Term limits before would be my difficulty. So I don't believe that I would be voting to recommend Evan voting to recommend term limits or no no people people Without I have several questions and without explanation of them. I would vote against this recommendation George I think that If we're going to make Formally or informally term limits um a criteria for Evaluation of candidates A And b we are going to try to be consistent in Our application of this There does seem to be a glaring inconsistency in the current Uh Crop of candidates at least in one case um would not Seem appropriate given the notion that um Term limits is is an appropriate Criteria to use so I would be I would probably vote against this as well On that ground of consistency. We're going to do this. We should be consistent. We've done it once I wasn't happy about it, but that's what we did And now we're doing it again, and it seems that just with the sake of consistency. We should So I would vote against it at the moment Listen, so briefly along those lines. So when we talked about this with planning board and zba, right? So planning board we had the big argument about it zba We did continue a person on for an additional year because that's what they asked for to help smooth the transition for a body That had some new members on it That was part of what I was trying to get at when I was asking what does finance committee knowing what they know now Really need from people because as I stated earlier, I'm no longer convinced that it needs to be substantial experience from the previous finance committee Given my relationship with some of those people. That's awkward for me to say So at most I would want to consider Having the person with all those years of experience only recommended for one year But I am concerned that since there are only three members Right, like we said there aren't four anymore since there are only three having two of them before more finance committee given where we are in the process I'm no longer convinced is essential And so I'm uneasy I would at best I was going to argue that One of the the most experienced member only get a one-year term But I'm I'm also uneasy about the pool in general So I feel like we've already had the discussion that we need to have a vote So that was just a completely backward way of doing it and then I'm just going to call the question I think that if if the term limit issue is Going to be a criteria That should be something that is discussed before with the oh, it doesn't mean because That if people knew that in advance They wouldn't apply and So This is All new to me that this is the criteria that each of you is using to possibly vote against because It wasn't something that was discussed by us And it wasn't something that was given Out to potential applicants as a reason why they shouldn't bother to apply Um So the thing that I would say about that is that we had a very lengthy and a long-term discussion about Term limits and it was when I brought people forward and I wrote that dandy little Memo about what I thought a a healthy multi-member body should look like and I would argue that we did talk about that Ad nauseam and I think that the sticking point for me is is that I'm the one who made the point about term limits And I really went out on Yeah, I really put myself out there and and how I felt about term limits. So I don't think that having this discussion Is a surprise I do think that what town council said to us in full is that if we are going to talk about term limits Then okah itself needs to have a Discussion about hard fast rules on on that But I'm going to agree with george and I'm going to agree with my own sense of continuity and saying if I said it About another committee, of course, I would say it about If I said about one i'm going to say it about the other george well, I think in In sympathy with darcy. This is something while we have talked a lot about a lot about it We have not made any formal decision in any way shape or form that i'm aware of So I could understand her sense of well, you know, why didn't you tell me? We didn't but Um so She went ahead with the understanding that this was not something hard and fast and looked at the Candidate pool and made a recommendation. So I certainly don't fault her in any way shape or form but I do Have a sense at this point that This is an issue that's been raised now and discussed And something that we need to actually make a decision on and this forces us yet again to that point But I don't find fault with what you did in any way shape or form. I might have done exactly the same thing and be in your shoes but Have you said that? There is this problem of consistency and we need to resolve it one way or the other and maybe that will require at a future meeting an actual vote or some kind of Statement of policy on term limits Maybe in the short term we just needed to make a decision on this particular group of candidates But at some point for Darcy's sake and all our sakes when we go to do these interviews in the future I think we need to have a clear sense from this body What we mean by term limits and how we expect them to be applied because we don't have that at the moment And without that, um, she made her judgment and I don't fault her for that You know, I'm going to apologize to Darcy if that's the way it came off. I don't fault you at all I guess what I was trying to say is is that Was my feeling of consistency and it was something that I had put forward And so my own personal vote, right my own personal you're right We're learning and there's a lot of things that you could say We we brought up a lot of things that weren't written in concrete that we sent you We just sent you out sailing and we all had different ideas in our heads So I find zero fault in in what you did. Let me make that really really really clear I'm just saying that that my personal vote is not so much It is has to do with the consistency and the things that I said about Planning and zoning so I just want to make that clear that it's absolutely no hit to you I think you did a fabulous job and that we did we did have you sail out without Some pertinent information or assumptions on our part Evan Great. So my my recollection of the conversation of term limits was that we were not going to Abide by term limits as a hard and fast rule for our first set of appointments And so Darcy's absolutely right. There was there's no guidance that said you have to abide by them And so my decision isn't oh, we have to do term limits because we did agree that we weren't going to Make those and necessarily, you know Keep using the word litmus test today, but a litmus test, right? my my personal thought on them is If you have a pool where someone is clearly So qualified you need them and other people are not Then I would then you can sort of suspend that term limits is what we had agreed To bring them to bring them along. I don't feel like that's the case here And so looking at this my my I am not Beholding to any term limits necessarily and I think that okra should have a discussion about whether we want to have them But my decision isn't just term limits It's term limits in the context of the broader pool And I think that's that's the important distinguishing point here is it's not yes term limits. No term limits. It's This should be our general guiding principle that we might want to overrule given some circumstances But in this circumstance, I don't see any necessity to do that Which is in which as Alyssa brought up we did do, you know With zoning board of appeal like so that that is there that is our consideration of what makes up a Healthy multi-member body and that was our our thinking and that yeah That we're saying that it's yes term limits But also would there be a reason to hold someone over if there wasn't enough expertise and I think for myself I would say that My feeling is is that I would not agree with that I would just add that if we do adapt something like that We should put that in the posting That we aren't going to consider anyone who has exceeded x amount of terms or whatever so that they don't waste their time applying for Or and the interviewers don't waste their time interviewing People that we've already decided aren't eligible agreed Alyssa agreed except we've never used it as a hard and fast thing It is an existing thing the town managers using it. We've looked to it. Yes. The town council hasn't adopted it Yes, we cannot I will never support saying six years and done no matter what so I don't want to tell people that I will tell people that it's not likely you'll be right You'll be reappointed if you have a long number of years of experience But there are some circumstances in which you could make the case or others could make the case That we need you to do that like we just did with zba Like we have done numerous times in the past when we had the six-year term limit clearly in place And so I don't want to tell people they can't but I do want to give them realistic expectations I agree that we want to give them realistic expectations And that wasn't even really possible in this particular circumstance because of course No one's experienced in having this role on the finance committee because it's never been one before So it it would have been really awkward to say well, what do we count toward that? So So we do have unless I mentioned this earlier, but I think she may have another objection so this may not really work, but we do have the option of Using a one-year appointment And then a two-year appointment right we could stagger appointments And the one-year appointment could be given to a candidate who has this Right With I think I don't know how formal it has to be but with the understanding that This would not probably lead to reappointment because of the length of service that's been involved So that would offer us a way forward Short of having to send this all back. I mean it's not clear to me what happens if we do in fact Reject the recommendations that Darcy has made we're rejecting all three And it goes back to what I mean what actually haven't helped me here We have been considering all recommendations as a sweep, but there's no Requirement for us to do so we we could make a motion on each of these names individually And I guess I'm just a little uncomfortable picking at this point picking people out And we've gone through the process the interviews have been done the recommendation has been made I doesn't I've understand it doesn't commit us to anything But I think as a matter of just respect For the people who've gone through it and the fact that we've not been explicit or clear about this issue of term limits that I think a reasonable and appropriate way forward would be to use staggered Term limits just give me use staggered terms here and use the one-year appointment Um for the candidate that has the greatest amount of experience with the understanding either formal or informal that this would not lead to reappointment That's what I would suggest elicit mentioned it earlier, but I think she had another objective That makes sense to me if we're going down that road Evan So I want to say two things one is we're Beyond our self-imposed deadline I'm uh This process was always done as we have one person bringing forth people and Oka can decide whether or not to accept them or reject them and those candidates are offered this tentatively With the understanding that they might not get it Um, I understand the idea of with respect to them, but they're aware of the circumstance and and I I don't want to craft a solution to make something work for appointees That I don't agree with just out of respect for The fact that they've been offered something and so for me personally and maybe we're not ready to vote on this But for me personally, um, I have questions about Why this person versus others and I don't want to To try to say well, well, so let's just do this because we've already told them When I actually have an issue with this person being put forth So I think we're at a point where we either need to table this until next time or vote on it And I just like to yeah, and I would just like to agree with Evan I mean we had this as a check and balance So if we're finding that this is not a check and balance and we really need to think about that if oca feels that it's Obligated then yeah, we're just rubber stamping it and then I don't think that's what we intended so, um So it sounds to me like we're not ready for a motion and so in that case Can we just ask that the finance committee get back to us with their information prior to our meeting next monday So we at least have that new piece of information that will help inform our discussion next monday. Yes And for the sake of the minutes, um, and this could perhaps be done after the meeting But I just need to be clear in the minutes. What exactly where or do we need to have it written in the minutes? What exactly we're asking fin come to do or i'm just gonna read or we trust that the the chair Um, we'd be able to we just we said it so it's it's in there. Okay Well, I'm i'll talk to the minutes taker and see what See what he thinks Okay, so we're we're tabling this we have a hard stop in five minutes. Um This is what i'm holy cow. So Are we well do you want to vote for okay, so I guess we'll without What do we do things in a little crazy order? Should we have public comment before we elect a chair? No public comment All right, so Um, I have some Family matters that it required a great deal of my attention for right now Um, the attention that I need to spend as a mom Makes me feel that um at this time I am not effectively able to put in the time that's needed to be chair that being said I would like to say that I have absolutely loved being chair and I absolutely love this committee So with that being said, um, I am I have already um officially stepped down as chair and um I would like to appoint a new chair and I would like to To offer someone I would like to make an emotion I would like to nominate So I would nominate Evan Ross as the future chair of ogre I would second that nomination Would you accept this? I would accept that nomination. Do you accept this rose? I'm sorry. This was a crazy meeting Okay, so um, would we have any discussion on my nomination? well, I Not really a discussion, but I just for the record and I think I speak for everyone on the committee We're grateful for everything you've done And Sad that you have to step away, but it's for good reason But you have put in an enormous amount of work And so I just want to express my gratitude for what you've done and I take it you're still going to be with us I am absolutely going to be with you. Yes Anyway, thank you, sir. Very much for what you've done up to this point Thank you, george. That was kind. I would like to second that And also say that should I Be elected chair I would be I am very grateful That you took the chair position during what will certainly go down in history as the most difficult fraught contentious stressful part of this committee and so we'll always have Paris We'll always owe you more. We'll remember that you can ever thank you Thank you so much, Evan While we're saying nice things just to add on I know we're out of time But the way that you have managed when we've been frustrated with each other to negotiate Here's what I'm hearing. Here's what I think we're doing it without just going like a listen going We're doing um Yeah, because I gave up on that poker face once town meeting was over So thank you. You've been a do you've done a terrific job as evan says I would argue I know the finance committee might disagree with me, but I would argue the most difficult thing That we've had to do in committee work has been this so thank you Thanks guys So I I would second that too and uh, and elissa, I assume this means that you want to continue as vice chair Yeah, I think it was only me that was stepping down, but Yeah Tradition says that when you reorganize you reorganize and since we don't have an official All right. Well, okay to reorganize that. All right. Well, we can do that. Well, let's okay So I have nominated evan evan has accepted that nomination has been seconded all those in favor. I All right, and so then if we have to reorganize For vice chair, I I would nominate elissa I would second that nomination. Any discussion. Oh, do you accept do you accept this rose? Sure Thank you. No, I'd love to still be in a support role. I appreciate that Okay, any any discussion Hearing none all those in favor I And with that I would like to um, how would you In the back there is I could go back and get it. I don't know how fast I could go Yeah, he is you don't give george a gavel. Okay, and I am going to um Evan your chair. Do you want to do you want to do you want to join us? Do you want to come sit in this big chair? I can sit here and say So we can adjourn I will entertain a motion to adjourn With the meeting meeting next week here 9 30 july 1 so then we are adjourned at noon exactly hard stop