 As soon as we do, okay. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Okay. You should be all set. Thanks for catching up, Andy. All right. No problem. And now. I'm going to call this meeting again to order. It's 1032 governance organization legislation. It is September 30. And pursuant to Governor Baker's March 12 2020 order suspending certain provisions of the opening meeting open meeting law this meeting of GOL is being conducted via remote participation. I'm first going to check and make sure that everyone can be heard and can be seen if they wish to be. And starting with my committee members and we also believe have good Kathy's already been brought in. Thank you. So I'm going to start just looking at the screen Mandy. Yeah. Okay, the chair is here, Lynn. I said, thank you, Andy. Yes, president. Pat. Yes. Good. And now our panelists guest today, Kathy. Yes, here. Good Lisa. Yes. Great and Chris. Present. Good. Thank you all. So everyone is present and accounted for. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And a brief quick note about the agenda. The only real item of substance is continued review of wage theft and responsible employer bylaws. So those two bylaws are what are on our plate today. I did have an item three if we got through. I was sort of perhaps in a state of fog when I thought we might get through two and get to three. But if we do, we're going to get through three items. And that's what I'm going to talk about. And that's also something we can take up briefly. At discussion of future agenda items because that was the chair's genius thought. And I'm not sure my colleagues agree. I don't think we're going to get to that today, but it is item number three. We do have a set of minutes to approve. I hope people have had a chance to look at them. I've looked at them and they look fine. And then obviously be on the items not anticipated. The first item is the agenda item number three. And the second item on the agenda item number four is going to be review of the revised versions of wage theft and responsible employee bylaws. Those are in your packet and hopefully have access to them. At the appropriate moment, Mandy, we'll put them up on the screen. And we will be keeping track of any changes. We make if we make any. But before we get to that, we have an item. I think we have to deal with first related to wage theft. This is a committee issue apologize to our guests, but we need to discuss it. I think first I was thinking of putting it off But I my end reflection. I think we should talk about it up front Though you're welcome to disagree and we could change that so Andy you had raised a point with me That I felt that was worth discussion by the committee as a whole. So if you would raise that issue If you don't mind and then we will talk about it before we turn to the actual review of the bylaws So Andy I'm asking you to speak Okay, this is a not a comfortable discussion to start and I don't really want to spend a lot of time now discussing it because they really I Think substance it's gonna be important, but I do I did do appreciate the opportunity to bring it up now I finding that it is a little bit questionable having a committee of five members who are working on whether this is An actionable bylaw with two of the members of the committee also being co-sponsors of the bylaw and I think about it in terms of what we did with the Plastic bag bylaws the experience and Council counselor demand was very helpful as a part of the discussion But there was a real division. It was a real clear Division between the members of the committee and what our responsibility was and Her role as an advocate trying to find solutions to the wording of the bylaw that would address the question that was before us and the issues before us and As we've continued on this discussion, I've become Increasingly uncomfortable about it to the point that I felt that it need needed to be Placed into the discussion at some point to talk about So I said this is hard because they are too members of the committee that I Respect so greatly and work with very closely and appreciate and That that makes it and also a harder discussion to have down the line, but I don't think that I could avoid bringing up the awkwardness of the situation and How that reflects on the committee and the credibility of the committee's work going forward Having said that I think the George touched on the beginning as to whether We need to have that discussion now or can dive into the bylaw and I leave that to the chair So include there Okay, Annie. Thank you My initial instinct was to hold this off until we had finished our review and then have this discussion since in my mind It concerns really the issue voting and not the issue of review But I also felt that that's perhaps something that the committee should at least be aware of and maybe want to discuss So that's why I asked Andy to lead off the meeting so that at least you're aware of this issue The next question becomes do we want a full discussion of it now? Which I'm certainly open to doing My preference would be to wait until after review and then have that discussion But I also felt that that's really decision that should be made by the committee or at least with the committee's Agreement so for the moment. I want to just turn to my colleagues and You can go either way you can discuss the issue if you wish right now That's perfectly open or you can just weigh in on whether you think this is something that now It has been brought to the table and people are aware of it We will come back to it After we finished our review. So that's the Two options here. So thoughts from my colleagues on this George, I have my hand raised. Please let me go ahead Complicated one, but I have to be I mean the reality is that Um In the charter we're very clear that all counselors are created equal and that there's no differentiation among counselors and That's also made clear With regard to the president voting on things and so a part of me Feels that while I think we need to Be up front about this That no counselor should ever be denied The ability to vote on something that comes before a committee of the council or the council So obviously pat has lost connection. I'm gonna see if she can call in but um So this has come up before particularly when Joel was considering the Was it the election by the election financing by law that Evan and I sponsored and Evan and I were both on GOL at the time and We participated in the discussion Mainly as sponsors, but also a little bit as GOL, but but you know the same manner that Darcy did and that I feel like Pat and I are doing on this one, which is Sort of as the sponsors trying to respond to all of the concerns of the committee and of the legal opinion and all to get a bylaw that the sponsors are Are happy with but that also Gets the rest of the committee to the action ability and being able to vote for actionable. I Looked up our vote. Oh Oh That is Pat calling me. Hold on a second. I will answer Yeah, um, so I looked up the vote for that campaign finance bylaw and it was a three to zero vote and With two abstentions because the two sponsors that happened to sit on the committee abstained from the vote for clear consistent and actionable and and um and I think That is a reasonable solution to this one too is that Because the sponsors in terms of whether it's clear consistent or actionable can have a potential conflict It's one that they could choose to vote on their own or they can abstain but It's not an actual conflict in terms of anything regarding conflict of interest law Because we are legislators. That's what we're here to do And so I I would argue that participating in the conversation both as sponsors and as committee members And is reasonable and that it's more Appropriate and from my point of view, I will likely abstain from any vote made on these bylaws as a GL member because I've done it in the past as a sponsor, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't be participating in a discussion As sponsor and that's mainly what I'm doing here is working with my co-sponsors to get this bylaw to a point that the co-sponsors are are happy with it but that the GL committee can get to a point where they can vote on it. I see Lynn's hand up or is that a residual It's not a residual. It's actually to raise a definition. Please Lynn go ahead Okay, the issue that I want to raise is whether or not at the by the time we get done with this We feel it has been substantially altered to the point that it has to go back to CRC and or the TTS of and I just don't want to get caught in the situation that I feel like we did with the plastic bag. I Just want us to keep that in mind and Then also decide whether or not at some point We Hold off our vote until those referrals have been made. That's trying to connect My path. Okay Anyway, that's that was the other issue. I wanted to raise. I'm lowering my hand. Okay. Okay So that's a separate issue, but it's been raised as well. Thank you. I see Andy's hand up and I think Before I recognize Andy I wonder if Pat since she was kind of away Did you have something you wanted to say now Pat? Um, I didn't hear any of the conversation, but I But I did I do know that The I am your I think you're asking Mandy and I to recuse ourselves from the decision Yeah, I'm clear consistent actionable. Yeah, and I I don't want to do that, but I can understand the reasoning behind it But I'm uncomfortable with it that's okay, I Mean That is what we did with Evan and Mandy Joe before isn't that yeah, so it's fair But I want to be included in the discussion. That's the piece that is critical Andy, you know, I just wanted to Building a little bit on what Mandy said like prior comment That I was not trying to hold up the discussion that we really were I want to focus on right now which is the pieces that are in the work drafts of the by-law and I Felt it was a courtesy not to delay Mentioning the concern, but I don't want to hold up the discussion that we intended to have today So I'm gonna just offer my two cents and then I think try to bring this to a conclusion. Um, I Don't think if I understand what Andy's the point Andy was raising It's not about the participation of the sponsors including council sponsors in our deliberations that is not the issue Participation of Mandy and Pat in our deliberations Is not the question at all the question is whether they should be allowed to vote on the issue when it actually comes to a vote And there I think there is I'm not sure I agree with Mandy and this maybe it was something we'll come back to later My feeling at the moment is that though in the past it was an abstention I wonder if in fact committee should make a decision one way or the other And whether it should even be the option Leaving it up to the individual counselor Somebody tell me what Mandy Joe said Well, I think and maybe I should let Mandy speak for herself I understood her to say that she definitely did not want to be left out of the discussion And I just wanted to clarify that that of course is that wasn't at all what I took Andy's point to be on that in the past it was an abstention And which left it open to the individual counselor, which kind of echoes Lin's point about Counselors having the right to decide to vote on a matter before their committee Seem to echo Lin's point that the counselor should have the option of Voting and if they choose to abstain fine if they choose to vote one way or the other fine As opposed to what I'm thinking or suggesting that we talk about which is the committee decided that when you do have members of the committee Who are sponsors of a particular? by law or Right, and I assume that would include resolutions writing so it could maybe this is right But that they would not be allowed to vote they'd have to recuse so that's the issue as I see it I don't know if we want to spend any more time on it now, but I'm gonna recognize Mandy with her hand up and then Pat But yeah, I took to Phil Pat and I said that this is a perceived conflict that can be declared in a sense But we are legislators. It's not even really a conflict under any conflict of interest law per se And therefore and it's not an actual conflict under any conflict of interest law So so we don't have to recuse ourselves at all And that it should be up to the individual counselors to choose whether they abstain or not I would heartily object to a committee telling a counselor whether they can or cannot vote that is not a committee's Role in anything. I am a counselor. I am elected to vote That that would be like telling me that I can sponsor legislation as a counselor But then I can't vote on my own legislation at the council meeting and that's just entirely wrong in my opinion And I'm sorry. I missed that because that was very clear Mandy Joe The other thing is that I've sponsored resolutions and I've always been able to vote on them in our committee both before Previously and with this group And so I am going to vote I want to participate in the discussion and we'll vote as a legislator Thank You Mandy Joe Lynn your hand is up George. I I also do not believe the committee should be making a ruling like this. I As I said when Pat was not here, I feel that every counselor has a vote regardless of the issue and that I if we decided on this then we set a precedent for other committees that anything that that is sponsored by a Counselor has to they have to recuse themselves and then my question would be well, what happens when it comes before the full council I would find it totally Not appropriate to have sponsors of something having to recuse themselves at a full council meeting Okay All right, um I'm ready to move on I don't know if Andy has any final thoughts I have other thoughts, but I think I want to let them lay for the moment and proceed to the mattered hand, but I See no hands Okay, so Let's turn to the now turn to the sponsors to decide which of the two bylaws one has I think far more changes and Then the other in terms of your you had a discussion my understanding is you had a discussion with KP law and this was discussion between the consul's consular sponsors and KP law and Then as a result of that discussion and further reflection you have presented us two documents That we got yesterday So there's going to be some challenge there I think with at least some of us catching getting up to speed but Do you have a preference as to which bylaw you want to tackle first? I think a responsible employer had the most issues so that would be probably where we should start Any thoughts there many Want to start with responsible Okay My thoughts too because it's got more more issues to discuss all right fair enough And we need to just agree on procedure here My feeling is we work literally line by line through the document in some places that may be that we can The changes are not of any substance and we can move quickly to the next but I would think we would need to look at each change in the document How do the rest of you feel about that as opposed to jumping around can I just explain something sure? I don't know whether this one's marked blue is KP laws changes red and orange our sponsor changes About purple Well, if you're looking at the share screen, it should be blue red and orange. I see. Thank you Can't say what yours pop up Printed coffee. Thank you. I don't know what printed copies look like go But that's blue is what KP law suggested red and orange is Sponsor suggestions or changes if it's not marked like if we're looking here with Amherst We're okay with the addition of that if that makes sense We crossed out town and went with home rule charter for example because that's the actual name. It's not the town charter It's the home rule charter And and things like that that don't have comments in our discussions with KP law were We're fine with KP law That makes sense. Can you clarify again? So on the screen blue is KP law? Yes, and Red is red and orange are sponsors Thank you now when the sponsors have made changes these are changes made after The KP law review or these were changes made prior to yeah Almost all of them are prior to or during the review with the discussion we had with KP law I think there is one change that KP law has not seen Okay, that's the only one we get to it. Okay. Thank you. All right so my thought is to go through this literally change by change and And Open to any question or discussion if there is none then I assume by consent We will move to the next item and that item stays as it's as it is written or as it has been changed Okay, so All right Under a first paragraph any comments questions concerns about these changes these are changes that The sponsors have made and KP law has seen I'm fine Okay, I'm not going to stop unless I hear someone may just speak up. I have my window open so I can see raised hand but If I miss you just just yell out and we'll go back be item one again a change here which is KP law and also if I sponsor Any concerns here? All right, we see We are now at uh, this I believe is still Go ahead Andy. So six the highlighted area is a change we made that KP law has not seen um, we talked with KP law about the addition of the phrase um, and It was meant to the phrase KP law added was meant to Modify the second half of the definition of tax relief not the first half everything after or We were still unclear what it actually meant and all and afterwards and what KP law had described was a concern about this bylaw being applicable to things like the um elder elderly Tax write-off work program that is technically tax relief or the veterans Tax relief that the council grants every year at the same time it boasts the budget and stuff So our attempt to clarify is to actually reference The mgl section that those tax relief items fall under And then still delete the phrase because we felt the phrase was very unclear and was hard to understand Okay Comments from the committee. Um, I see no hands but raised hands I think Andy's trying to comment. Andy, please go ahead You're muted Andy That's because I hit the wrong button. I hit mute me instead of raise hand So the One thing that I've been thinking about with this section all along It actually gives us back to our one very serious and live A episode in Amherst, which is the tax relief that was provided through the Special legislation and the bylaw as enacted by town meeting that provided That provides that the town can Give tax abatement tax in tax as a form of tax relief for an affordable housing agreement which was part of the beacon agreement And The that was a very Special kind of situation because What happened was the town meeting past the bylaw and then It was included that we didn't have the authority to do it without special legislation Sandy Poole, who is at that time working for the town work with kp law and with legislative delegation to get a special legislation passed to allow us to do that and then the select board entered into an agreement with beacon Of course, I've lived through all that had peace of it because I was on the select board at the time So I wanted to make sure That if we're going to go down this path That we not exclude that agreement, which is really not only a very important form of tax relief, but It's actually his back to the one Very serious example we have of where there was a problem with wage theft happening So Mandy, I I just don't know if we're there So I don't think mgl chapter 59 section 5 which would be excluded from this relates to that special legislation at all and under the definition under 6 that special legislation would be the Or pursuant to any other provision of law or regulation authorizing the town to grant tax relief So it would be included in this bylaw and be subject to this bylaw that special law we were actually concerned that the phrase that kp law tried to add unrelated to statutory provisions for tax abatements and exemptions might actually remove that special legislation from This bylaw this bylaw being applicable to it. It was it was part of our concern with We had problems understanding What that phrase truly did Which is why the sponsors don't want to keep that phrase and we tried to address it in a different manner Have you given any consideration to I I don't know how That special legislation was cited within the session laws But Inclusion of the special of the session law designation if possible Within the same area That you have tiff agreement Andy you don't feel that the phrase or pursuant to any other provision of law or regulation authorizing the town to grant tax relief You don't feel that that covers your concern I If the Sponsors are comfortable with it. I will go with it. I just didn't want to pass it by without Some form of discussion because I do think that it Is such a key piece of the legislative effort that we've enacted in the town Kathy I see your hands up Yes, I I just my argument for the general wording as mandy explained was If that was a special legislation We would have to keep rewriting this bylaw if we figure out another special legislation that's somewhat similar but not the same um So I think the broader language that's an umbrella Is better if you don't want to keep having to drop in as I understood from mandy. This wasn't Applies to all places. It was just applied to amherst. Um that special legislation So I don't think we want to anchor it in just one instance of something where these gls are nice and broad. Um They are broad. They're not nice and broad. They are broad Okay, I see no other hands up anyone else uh with a thought or comment on this My thought is it's covered by The phrase that I just read and I think I sense Kathy and mandy would agree Um The point has been raised as andy requested. I don't see any reason to change this or to Fault through it anyone else Does this is this the one area you said you had not checked back with kp law? This this is the one one section that we changed we talked to kp law about it We said we'd try to clarify what her thing was but then we didn't go back We didn't do it during the meeting and when we were Meeting afterwards to do that clarification. This is what we came up with so kp law has not seen this Do you see might might be prudent for the chair to send this to kp law just to make sure i'm sorry Lynn That's what i was gonna ask Yeah, I would think that would be appropriate. I don't know what others think but it would be quick I mean, I just got to turn around on an item I think they've gotten the message from us If I may be so bold Because I sent them something about the wild animal by-law and it came back within 48 hours Which is I think a world's record. So I think with this one Given the history of of this by-law they would be very quick in response But I would my instinct would be any change that we make today of substance That kp law hasn't seen it would be prudent for us to at least run it by them before we sign off completely George, I appreciate Your belief that they'll send it quickly You're probably right But I think it would need to be stated that it needed to be back in 24 hours or something It's very small very minor And I don't I want this on the agenda for monday's meeting There may be more than one item like this before we're done today. So um, and they may not but My sense is that I should send this item to kp law With a request to have it returned to us as soon as possible Before In time for the october 5th agenda Okay, otherwise, we're just playing the same old game Okay Okay, I think we can move on then Kathy has her hand raised. Sorry Kathy. Please go ahead. I just I'm I'm gonna excuse myself because I Have my mother living with us and the nurses just come to see her. So I've got to go Okay All right. Bye. Bye. Kathy Okay Next change is c1 This was just to clarify which sections go out go into the contract All right Good. I have no issue with that anyone. I don't see any hands Please speak up if you don't if I don't recognize you just yell out. I'm looking at three screens at the moment Um We're looking at f So the sponsors had no problems with the additions in f and g Okay All right, that would I seem would be fine h So the question that remains in h We were fine with the endeavor to addition and the removal of atom minimum We recapitalized people of color because it's defined in the definitions and that's what our general Thing is is to keep it capitalized if it's a definitional issue Um Lauren had indicated A thing about potentially removing the numbers the she didn't actually do that on here though But I highlighted it in pink as a potential area where there's still disagreement The sponsors want to keep the numbers as listed. Um where there is still disagreement Is in the pink highlighted section at the end of h the sponsors like the original language Um They are willing we are willing to keep the new language if we also add the original language back in um, I think pat can speak more to Why we want the original? but But we're okay with a compromise of going with KP laws language But also our language, um, and I did not draft that compromise into this document, right What I'm sorry. Why did KP law want the percentages out? I've no doubt difficult to enforce Will she are you there's difficult just concerned about challenge. Yeah, but quite literally these percentages have um are um in east Hampton's bylaws they're in Lynn's bylaws and um Mandy Jo aren't they part of a The governor patrick's executive order. Yeah So we feel strongly that They need to be there get particularly given the climate that we're in right now We want to make every effort To include people of color and low veterans etc and women in projects like this and we understand that A contractor would endeavor to provide And would not be penalized if they didn't manage to meet those percentages for for reasonable reasonable reasons Okay, um, Andy Yeah, I'm going to go back to G. I Is a part of my comments here too, but I wanted I Am a little bit uncomfortable with percentages being included partly because of Lauren's comments and partly because going back to some of our Our previous discussion about The point that was made What if an additional bylaw is passed that might bring Need to be included in that Section that we just previously were right where it identified tips and other Related subjects said it's Like what if the governor's order has changed on percentage numbers And if the only thing that we have to legally hang our hat on if challenged on this Is the percentage That is based upon something that was an executive order and not even a legislative piece Then we're put in the position if challenged of having to defend it And I think that that may be what Lauren's concern is And then turning back to g so that I can complete both at the same time I've given a lot of thought to this question about and I should have raised it when we were but we went by f and g so fast So your preference to Amherst residents I understand why we would put that in there, but I have to reflect back on it from my experiences Western Massachusetts when I was executive director of the legal aid program that is now CLA's But it was western mass legal services when I was director Had An attorney come to me from the spring field office and said One of that we have had workers who have tried to get hired This project and were excluded because a neighboring community was giving preference and The discrepancy of people of color between Who we represent in this out of the spring field office and that community is so great We think it's challengeable I think that my response would have been if the litigation director Signs off on it I authorized the lawsuit because That's how we would have worked it um I think that that it was making me uncomfortable Mandy Joe has her hand up please Mandy So I I want to remind our committee that this review is for clear consistency clear clarity consistency and action ability and Lauren has not tagged g as inactionable That it is written to be legally actionable even if it's hard to if even if on a um substantive level Some individuals may not agree with it. It is not inactionable At this time. Um, so I I hope we can keep our questions to clarity consistency and action ability Many of Lauren's comments as you'll see as we go on are more about Not necessarily the action ability, but the Conservativeness of defending a lawsuit if a lawsuit were to be filed But I would argue that g the comments made were of substantive issues and not whether the issue in g is actually actionable Mandy Joe has g changed Substantially during this process The only thing that changed in g was the addition of that blue that kp law did Okay, the reason I asked that is because I'm just reflecting back on our conversation about 132 northampton road and the arguments people made there about local the local option and That's that's not our committee. That is another committee and I just wonder whether This was discussed and I don't know the extent to which it was in crc or tsa So this was never in crc and tso Approved the bylaw this this section has not changed from what tsa other than that blue edition has not changed from what tsa saw I will also say that with the gaming bylaws in massachusetts This kind of stuff has been out there for a long for a while now These kinds of specific percentages lenn well not just percentages, but even as it's stated in g There's Right in the gaming bylaw a lot of effort to employ local But however, they may have gone more regional or like the amherst area but um, I We have the region after amherst residents. Yeah as it is Mandy raises a very good point. Um, but a difficult one it seems to me because um Obviously kp law is going to raise a number of of concerns that go beyond clear consistent actionable And i'm not sure how we can avoid discussing them at some level because if we don't discuss them It's not clear how they'll ever get to the council Well, that's where I think we may need to flag those areas if there have been changes to them since tso Has looked at this and then send it back to tso Is this craze? I know uh pat. I hate I know I know We have created the same kind of government swamp That every other town seems to live in and it is very frustrating. I I apologize for my frustration I would argue nearly all of these changes tso are are Have been seen have been seen in substance by tso I think we just need to rely on the sponsors who've been You know attached to this thing from the beginning to just tell us that and if it's been Reviewed by tso then fine. Just move on So I think lin you had a question about the The pink area the one that we know that that we don't agree with kp law so kp laws argument for changing to certify under oath that compliance with the section was not possible or practical Bull and away from submit documentation detailing the efforts to meet the requirements was that As originally written by the sponsors The that put the burden on the town to determine whether those efforts were acceptable And therefore the Moving it to the the certification and the re wording moves that burden to the contractor to say under oath Hey We couldn't do it The reason the sponsors don't necessarily agree with that wording Or this this change or the removal of the submitting documentation is This bylaw does not actually require the town ever to make a determination as to whether The efforts were reasonable or not. It just asks the Contractor to submit documentation. There's no Further action on the part of the town required once that documentation is submitted And the sponsors believe that It's too easy for a contractor to say. Oh, hey It wasn't possible and I'll certify that under oath And it's much harder to do that if they have to also prove that they tried by submitting some sort of documentation that includes You know advertising of positions somewhere or things like that. Um, but the town the the reasons kp laws set forth for wanting the change We didn't feel were You know sort of In accord with what we were asking because there's no There was no demand by the In this bylaw for the town to make a determination as to whether the documentation submitted was sufficient It just needs submitted. Um, and so we would really like we're fine with keeping the certify under oath But we would still like to keep the submit documentation and it would be the wording would just be An and submit documentation detailing the efforts to meet I think is how we would do it at the end of the sentence I have no problem with it I I I don't know how to say speak to the issue of the percentages Up here. I've seen them elsewhere. They could change from administration to administration I think that's Andy's point, but you know down your other changes. I have no problem So that's what it would look like Yeah Um, and I'm sorry again, man. Apologize for my obtuseness the reason The kp law objected to or did they object to requesting documentation? Was what it was too much? Right go ahead They based it on the town putting the town at at um On the hook for determining whether that documentation was sufficient, but this bylaw does never Right Yeah, okay, okay I for one can see your reasoning. I think that um Without requiring some kind of proof it would be very easy for them to avoid this Okay, I think again many you see how difficult it is to To to just be clear. I mean this is right. Um, it's hard to avoid substance here Wait till we get to page I think what we're with g and h what we have agreed What i'm hearing and people to pick up is that we are going to accept The changes in the document as we see them And with the addition of and submit documentation detailing efforts to meet these requirements Can I suggest it? Um, this would actually be going back on h. Um These kinds of percentages do change from time to time Is there a way to word this that talks about percentages consistent with I don't know Governor or something something that allows I mean those percentages could easily go up over time and You know, we don't want So so the the thing to do is to just change them in the bylaw then if we decide they're too low Okay Lisa do you have anything to say about that? I was just gonna the only thing I chime in is that um to Andy's concern about um being challenged on it that these percentages have been in effect for quite a while and in different municipalities They have requirements as opposed to shall endeavor to and they have higher numbers and there have been no challenges To any of them. They've been in boston for a number of years. They're now wister just put them in for their projects Springfield has it as a requirement And there have not there have not been challenges to it It's it's conceivable Lisa with the upcoming Census that those numbers could change Yes, they could go they have only gone up where they have existed So boston has increased their numbers in springfield has increased the woman number and they used to have five percent and they increased it to 6.9 um So that you know in springfield they they modified the policy To increase their numbers Okay, so I I I always prefer to write bylaws that have the flexibility over time to change with those kinds of issues but um If other people are comfortable that this is just something that gets reviewed regularly in this bylaw Then that's fine, but if we're pinning it to some um reference That is Regularly updated then the bylaw should be Pinned to that reference, but it sounds to me like we're not pinning it to a specific reference Except for the present governor's goals Yeah, I mean I would I guess I would just add that the So this was set by the previous governor governor deval patrick said these this executive order The current governor has not rescinded the executive order And I know that he has increased the numbers on mbe mbe's and So for minority business enterprises and women business enterprises like for example of what de cam and umba do But he has not done touched the workforce goals. Um I wouldn't anticipate that he would rescind them or lower them So it could tie it to the state's goals. Um, I'm Kind of I just don't know how we Make sure that bylaws with this kind of specificity in this Are regularly reviewed That's that's the issue that Comes up for me I think also there's a difference between a bylaw and a policy you can change policy It's pretty easily bylaws are a little bit more cumbersome So what you're suggesting here. I'm not saying it can't be done And maybe it's not as cumbersome as I imagine is that every time you want to Just to figure you have to you have to amend a bylaw What would be ideal would be to have a reference to a particular policy maybe set by Um some department in the town like or somebody like the human rights commission And whatever their figures were would be the figures that the contract would have to use And those figures would be reviewed regularly by that particular body I think Lynn is right that it's unlikely that counselors I mean, maybe I'm wrong here, but the counselors are going to be constantly combing through the bylaws for things as detailed as this That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it Maybe we just have to leave it for the moment But I think it would be in my mind it would be ideal if h were tied to a particular policy set by a particular Body in the town government And the contractor would simply have to consult that body to find out what the current figures are Setting them as they are here explicitly Raises the very kinds of questions that we've been talking about Could human rights commission be empowered at some point to to take care of this and then I don't know but thoughts I guess the question for lisa for me is and she meant I know the answer to this Is whether these towns like springfield, wister boston actually had to change their bylaws Or whether they just had a policy that they could adjust Um, because one would seem to be much easier than the other Um, springfield changed, uh an ordinance So in order initially a bylaw Boston, I think it's an executive order So it was the mayor who made that change Okay, okay Right now we don't have From what i'm hearing except to say these are the governor's orders We don't have anything to pin this to Um, so I don't know what else we can do but go on but I that's the kind of thing I would have liked to have seen Is somehow another pinning it to something Else that's reviewed regularly By the way, our charter does require that we do bylaw review on a regular basis. It's just not very regular In our free time I mean We moving on I guess we are Yeah, okay, all right This is so I left some comments in here Lauren was just commenting on lawsuits and or the potential for some lawsuits and all and all So the contractor already submits weekly certified payrolls In these instances and they include everything but gender and whether they're a person of color And so all the other stuff identifying number address name is already submitted by contractors in instances like this and all and She didn't suggest deleting it and we again Went to the recapitalizing the definitional sections And then her other one on osha 10 was just um a question I think And we did intend to span expand that requirement But she didn't have any actionability issues with either of these And they don't see a problem. Um, if your numbers get below a certain number of Um Being able to identify an individual employee So it'll already have employees names. Those are already submitted with employee names and all currently in these contracts It's just a requirement of municipal contracting And what we are asking in addition again, mandy is gender and person of color right In the osha 10 card, that's can you just I think lisa can better handle what an osha 10 card is. Well, not not so much what it is But is that an additional requirement or is that something they do ordinarily? lisa It's an additional requirement here. It is um a part of um most construction jobs do require That i'm coming on to the job site when the employee Gives their shows their you know i9 documentation. They also Make a copy of the employees osha 10 But it's not currently a requirement with municipal contracts. Okay The osha 10 is a certification, right? It's a certification of 10 hours of safety training Right, of course Okay Andy i'd be curious if you see either of these as Putting the town at risk um I chris could speak to the osha 10. Um, certainly the Gender and people of color where these goals have been or requirements have been put in place Elsewhere it's a routine part of this the certified payrolls now So the ums building authority with all their projects They just added those columns on and the Payroll department chr departments that uh with the contractor fills them in as they fill in the other information Okay, i'm prepared to move on any other thoughts. I can see some of the screen not all of it anyone else thoughts on k Well number three was the next one. We had a difference of opinion on With kp law. We put shall in there kp law once may We actually think may is more problematic than shall because it gives too much discretion. This is one that says um If you don't comply with these if you don't certify you're going to comply with these requirements and obligations Your bid will be rejected But the way kp law wants it written is Your bid can be rejected Um, and we think the can be rejected actually provides too much leniency and more of a risk to the town than It will be rejected because then if it's only a can The people looking at the bid can say well, we really like this one So if they didn't certify we'll we'll be okay with them not certifying But we'll just reject this one that didn't certify because we don't like them There's much more discretion in a may and than a shall. So we we intend to keep it shall okay, I I'm going to go to my experience as a person that's dealt with bidding for years And that is that sometimes something like this could have inadvertently been overlooked And yet it may be extremely solid bid And so to be able to say it would be rejected out of hand Causes me some concern I understand that we want the per that we want the contractor to ultimately certify but What this would allow somebody to do is say oops, they didn't do it rather than the discard pile without even considering anything else Wouldn't couldn't they be contacted lin if they didn't submit it? Are you going to submit this? I'm saying when it says shall it basically says upon I mean unless it's I mean usually first review anything that's shall means you're in the discard pile Um Well, they wouldn't make that mistake again I know but in the process I know I know the other issue is that Oh What if you only have two bids and one Inadvertently didn't do this and the other one did Somehow or another I would like the opportunity To go back and check with the bitter Um And and like I said the word shall usually means on first review you're in the discard pile My concern with what you're saying lin is that um That feels to me like the Contractor who would then get rejected because we have we chose the other one without certification Has a reason to call out the town ensue us. So I feel like I mean, maybe I was sort of making a joke With the shell, but I bet that contractor would never make the mistake again May Really is about discretion And this you know and discretion is often subjective and that is what can be attacked And I I understand that and I I agree with that To an extent except if it just gets down to just so few bidders and Now we're basically saying Okay, well, I mean on the other hand Pat. Let me just say the town can also say we have two few bidders We're just going to go back out So they if they got to the point that You know, nobody Who had certified this or only one could certify it they could just say We declare this competition now avoid and make the move on to another they could redo it And remind the contractor to fill so that they're required, yeah But that's that's my Here you go. Thank you. Is this substantive or is this? I mean Change Reject those and just leave it that way I'm sorry. Go ahead. Landy. I want to leave it like this like it was original. Yeah I think I I see the force of that argument. I hear Lynn's concern But I also hear the thought that look This is if this is going to mean anything you have to do it And if you don't do it Now I would like to think that in the process of doing all this if something we're missing Someone from staff would reach out and say by the way, we're still waiting for x Right And if they still don't give you x and it's time to make a decision And you've notified them or more than hopefully more than once Then they're out. That's it It's not like and I think Pat's point is that if it does give us discretion It does open up room for someone to say well, you know You've got let them get away with it Right So I I think I like to leave it as it is. It's my thought. I don't know if Andy has a thought or Okay, so I think we're going to leave it the way the sponsors wanted it. It should be shall And so five six and seven The sponsors were fine with all of the changes presented in the document themselves. I didn't know what kind of Comments the Committee still wanted to see which is why I left them in there But all of the changes requested in the document themselves the sponsors are fine My thought is that kp law is happy with it and you're happy with it I'm happy with Is that a syllogism? No, it's not. Okay. Um, so five six and seven are fine. The change to three is fine We're now to d Many is this again just these are just So so number one we were fine with the changes. So number two is a stylistic issue I didn't highlight it. So we Number two is supposed is one of the sections that goes gets dropped into a tiff agreement And so it's written So it can just be dropped in without any changes. So it refers to this agreement and this agreement in those two and number two um kp law changed it to each agreement and said You know, the bylaw would be written as each agreement and then when you drop it in you'd change it to this agreement Um, so it's much more of a stylistic thing The sponsors want to leave it this agreement so that the town doesn't have to remember to change the wording They can really just drop it in I like leaving it easy on the town Ditto Okay, so we'll go back to the original language To this Like that Thank you And then we're back to the same Issues we talked about in the prior one right So I think you know the changes that are shown I I can fix this one too Right, so we are going to adopt The same language and the changes that we adopted earlier We're not going to have the same discussion all over again. Right So it'll read like that Okay Man, are you able to make that a little bigger? Oh Yeah Thank you Helps me at least So I don't know what happened with the renumbering. I think there might have been an extra return in here somewhere. I don't know. Um We'll figure it out when we accept all the changes But otherwise We again the changes that are in the document themselves The sponsors didn't have a problem with all the way up through L And I left the comments in but they're very similar to the last ones the sections are nearly identical good, okay And then yeah, go ahead the department In number three, um While kp law did not actually redline this kp law suggested Removing it completely. Um And we disagree with that and Particularly for tax relief agreements those agreements when When drafted actually go to the state for approval before the tax relief is granted And so our thoughts are kp law's concern about it not being allowed Um, we would find out very quickly at the first time the tax relief agreement is granted whether the state will allow Debarment or not because it would go directly into that agreement. So leaving it in the bylaw um We think We think it's important number one that if you're if you're going to do something like what happened at beacon We don't want to hand you any more tax relief Um, and but we would find out kp law's concern was it might not be Allowable is part of an agreement. Um, they didn't come out and say it's not allowable And since these go to the state to begin with Um, we would know whether the state deems them allowable or not When this is entered when this is dropped into a contract And so we would like to leave it in Did kp law Soon it would probably be dropped by the state Maybe i'm not following Pat, I think kp law wasn't sure right right what that basically Is it the eacc? Yeah, they look at this kind of Information and they say yes, you can do that Um, because we have the right to add things to it, but they have the right of review And they can also say no, I don't think so um, so for us it feels that it's important to have this kind of Fixed, um Punishment, uh, I don't know if you want to say that um And because it would Every one of the agreements I believe have to go back to eacc. So it's not something that would be extra um And the reality is the town doesn't disbar people. That's a state action. Say that again. Lynn. I'm sorry Dispar people. That's a state action. Well, so this one this is just saying we we can't The sponsor that gets the tax relief is not allowed to hire anyone for five years to work on the project It's part of the contract for the tax relief that they can't hire someone that Violated our bylaw or any wage an hour in tip laws in the past few years So it's not a full debarment. It's it's a requirement of the agreement Yeah, and it's it's it's timed and it gives the Um contractor of the possibility of Coming back in five years But we really want to stress how incredibly important this is and given that you know as lin you brought up beacon Um, we don't want that contractor working on anything for five years Well, why five years? Pardon me why five years? You know, I mean just just pick a number of a hat. I mean, I think the other bylaws that we looked at Like lin etc. Right have that five year and again lisa or chris. I defer to you, but I believe that's where we got the figure Yes, some some places do three years some do five years. Um, we we think it makes sense to Not award a cheater another contract in the town and yet, you know Not bar them forever could be you know changes that they make to Change their business practices. I would argue we have so few of these in town that Less than five years is likely not to be a remedy or a problem at all Because we don't do these very frequently and so the five years makes more sense. It's More likely that someone who cheated the town or workers in the town in a past contract Would fall and not be able to work at least on the next one This I think is a substantive concern that I probably should raise if I want to raise it at all at the council but I'm going to raise it here just maybe you can set me straight and I can not have to raise this but When you bar someone like this That means the people that work for him or her also don't have a job So it's not just a contractor that gets barred. It's all the people that work for the contractor So I understand and and support the general purpose of this this bylaw And maybe five years is the right number but And maybe I'm misunderstanding something here, but it seems that you know, we're talking about cheaters or talking about bad actors But and we need to to punish them and to get them to to be good actors But I guess sometimes I'm just concerned that the punishment is is so severe and also first of all So when a contractor gets barred All the people that work for that contractor they have to they're gonna have to go find a job somewhere else one of the things that's true george about beacon is that it wasn't an regular worker wage theft generally happens frequently for new hires for People who are temporary who aren't part of the contractor's Family of workers So I hear what you're saying, but I feel like the people who are freelance will probably be picked up by other People doing the same work A lot of contractors have day laborers And so it's the contractor that doesn't pay that you're saying you can't work on this Not the day laborers who can find the contractor who Is allowed to work on it or the sub that's allowed to work on it. Okay. All right Yeah, many times the employees are the construction management of a contractor and Uh, the the actual trades workers the carpenters electricians, etc They come and go they work with one contractor for one project then they're on to a different contractor for a different project Then I would One of the things we always have to deal with in western mass versus eastern masses. We just don't have as many people bidding And whether they're I mean, I think once we start arguing three to five three or five years we're beyond committee's purview I agree and I apologize for bringing it up. It's just yeah Yeah Okay Yeah, there's a concern. I think that I if I need to raise it it should be raised at the council So any other thoughts? So we are going to um The non-compliance and complaints I think good. So the sponsors don't agree to any changes made in the section Okay, um, so everything you see the sponsors don't agree with Let's see if I can get the whole there's a little bit more that was deleted. I can't get the I have to make it slightly smaller Just because the skits are a little deep and complicated Could you just summarize where the sponsors are coming from and where k people are laws coming from? I'll try In some ways, I have to tell you I'm just getting you ready for the council No, so so kp law I don't think the sponsors ever really understood the deletion of number two completely um kp law You know, you've you've got the comment and decertification But this the whole original writing contemplated and I know lisa and maybe chris can answer this better Contemplated the fact that a tax relief agreement can't be decertified by a town automatically in general Most of the time it has to be decertified by the state There's state laws surrounding all of this and the way it was originally written Um contemplated that you know, it said where required the town shall petition the appropriate um entity and all um you know and and It seemed to and then the second paragraph was dealing with Well, if the contractor is going to challenge that or the sponsor is going to challenge that decertification Well, there's going to be an escrow account and all of that and I think what kp law thought was well, that'll never um That's not been seen before towns don't do escrow accounts towns don't do stuff like that So let's get rid of all of that. It's not going to be allowed. But um, again, this is a section that will get dropped into an agreement um So number one the state will approve that section before the agreement is granted Um and number two it requires it to go back to the state to do all of that and we're trying to keep the money Available if the state does allow that decertification and the repayment of the money It's in an account and you're the town's not going to get stiff then it's in that escrow account. So it I think kp law what lauren stressed in our meeting was many of these changes were based on Less risk not that what was there was not legal and couldn't be done But the change that she was suggesting was less risky for the town that it might lead to less lawsuits maybe um or things like that and so so In some sense, it's a it's a difference of not Is the language as originally proposed actionable? It's more of how much risk is are the counselors and the town willing to accept to put forth this agreement Lisa chris pat Add anything on that No, we did buy a tool for the town. I mean as it stands now With the language as it provides a tool for the town to use if there has been substantial wage theft and workers harmed on a project that the town had an investment in and so this allows the town to be able to Petition the state and then the state will decide the the the state body decides Yes, or no Well, we don't have an accessibility issue here. It seems we have an issue of risk and and tolerance of risk and So I don't know what to do with this in terms of discussion. Um, it's it's obviously an issue that that concerns me all throughout this Um, our attorneys are perhaps with the very nature of their business risk averse and the sponsors Are willing to take greater risks And the issue for the council is how much risk are we willing to take? The attorneys are suggesting we've been more cautious Sponsors are suggesting that, you know, in the end the state will decide But this is not an action ability issue apparently and it's certainly clear and it's consistent So what are you suggesting George that we send it like this with the decision? I I think Yeah, it has to I think it goes with the original language that the sponsors have proposed With and this is where it gets difficult with some sort of either a memo or in the discussion It's up before the council that the issue is is is raised and made clear to the counselors That our attorneys I guess we there probably needs to be at some maybe it has to be in the joel memo Even though many of these cases are not about clear clarity consisting of actual ability They're really about substance. So who writes the document or memo that addresses the substantive issues? Um, where the lawyers have said one thing and the sponsors have gone a different way Yeah I think that's important that the counselors be aware of it But it's also important that the sponsors have, you know, put forward the bylaw they want to put forward as long as it's clear consistent and actionable So this Apparently is clear consistent actionable, but the attorneys wanted to remove it because of the issue of the town's risk tolerance Andy has his hand up Andy, please Yeah, I'm Not sure how I feel about this is sort of getting back to it in some ways is problems I'm having With how the committee functions as opposed to the substance and the those two getting mixed together again um I think one of the things that we've come out to and with all respect for How much Mandy and Pat have put into this because they really have dealt into issues To a far greater extent than the rest of the committee has simply because they're co-sponsors in that discomfort that I had about How to distinguish the role of co-sponsors from the rest of the committee is in part Driven by you know evident by this discussion um And You know my inclination is that this is of such level of complexity not just this section But the entire subject I really would not like to vote on it today and i'm then driven by pat saying I'm impatient because I this is uh something that we've been working on for quite a while and I'd like to get it to the council um and you know, I think that there's a tension that is Floating around here because I'm looking at it and saying this is an awfully big by-law And with a lot of consequences and one that ought to not be rushed through this committee um, which gets into another subject, which is I'm not sure that I'm totally comfortable with the prior definition given to what is The role of the committee In what is clear consistent actionable meant to mean so I just um Have this whole bundle of problems that are running together here, and I don't know how to resolve them um George can please please go ahead um, I was wondering if uh chris soros had any comment on this section um and uh Believe me. We're not rushing Um, but that's a personal opinion, but chris, can you speak to this at all? Yeah, um, you know, I think so section E E and I guess it's What is Was number one Is simply a it's simply a procedure um Section and it's what happens if there's a violation if the town determines the city determines that it there's been a violation um of the agreement it can Uh, take the action that the recipient agreed to which is the rescission and and clawback if the type of tax relief is something that um required Requires approval by a state agency like the eacc in order to approve revocation Then it says then you go that way. So I don't really actually understand Any concern that she has at all about one because it's You you take the step you have the right to do if you have the right to do it on your own If you don't you go to the state, um, it seems sort of Um, straightforward This the other one about the escrow is really just I mean the the only point of that is that if you know, you get to that point where the there's been the the process of Uh revoking the agreement has has gotten to that stage um, it's really purely to to protect the city's interest in making sure that there's um, not just Uh, going to be the money available at the end of the day whenever whatever, you know Administrative or judicial process runs its course, but that you won't have to go chasing some You know llc or some real estate entity that that doesn't exist anymore doesn't have any assets and try to Recover or you know file a lien on the on the land It's really just to facilitate the city's ability to to get what it's owed under the agreement And that's all I I don't I don't see these as particularly complicated conceptually. Um, I don't really understand what Risk of you know litigation That the city's council has in mind and and and I haven't seen any Uh real articulation for why Uh, they believe that might be actually putting the city at risk. These are just really procedural steps um, and you know as I think, um, somebody mentioned Most if not all of these things, uh, these agreements Uh have to be submitted To the state for approval in the first instance and so if those terms are not acceptable You'd know right off the bat whether the state is going to deem them to be acceptable or not. So I think I don't see these as a heavy lift You know in terms of in terms of the legal issues I mean, obviously there are policy questions and those are appropriate for You know for consideration and debate by you but in terms of the league that the question of legal risk I don't see it Good chris. Thank you. Um, lisa your hand is up Um, I was going to add similar to what chris did. I guess I would just emphasize that This This language would be put into an agreement with the developer So the developer is coming to the town and saying we want tax relief And the town is then saying Okay, if we give you tax relief you are agreeing to Not have wage theft and if you are found one of your contractors to engage in wage theft Here are Some remedies that are going to happen as a result of it. And so the developer is agreeing to it on the front end and again, therefore The the risk was what I had written down as well as I I don't understand where that is putting the town at risk okay, um I don't know what degree this can or or does address Some of the concerns and he raised about what this committee does or tries to do um That may be something we're going to have to just Continue to wrestle with I'm not sure we can I mean we've been trying to resolve it for quite some time walking this line um in my mind our job is to Help this sponsor wherever the sponsor may be Get their proposal whatever it is To the council in a form that is a clear consistent actionable Um, even though I individually as a member of gel might actually vote against it Because I don't agree with it So, um, that's kind of you wear these doing two things at once, but I think that it's possible to do this Um, or you might have serious substantive concerns about the document, but the document itself um Right is meets the criteria. So here's a case where it seems uh, e Um, we can't see a legal issue I mean there's a risk issue, but that's a different matter um And it's what the sponsors want And it seems clear it seems consistent And as a procedure it seems actionable And if it isn't the state will intervene we don't can't control that anyway So the question for the committee is do we leave it in? Because that's what the sponsors want given the comments by the attorney which Don't seem to be strong enough on any level of clarity consisting of actual ability to remove it I don't know Andy if that helps you, but that's sort of the way I approach it I might at the council Raise the whole series of objections to this on a policy level um Or whatever or risk level Based on what I understand the attorney. Well, I'm not sure I do understand the attorneys Come in here, but anyway, I could erase it at a council meeting Right, but here it seems inappropriate Andy has his hand up Yep I had my I raised my hand over a slightly different thought question here But I appreciate your your your comments that you just made um will The inclusion of this provision affect any of the Efforts to get the Project going to begin with um, what I'm thinking is that When do you cross a point and this is this again getting probably beyond the question of Clear consistent and actionable as we've defined it previously But going back to the beacon situation had there been a At what point do you put so many Requirements on a project Where our goal was to get housing built that included affordable housing, which was a very important issue For the town it still is a very important issue for the town um That it would either make it impossible for Beacon to get Yo CD support That they needed or other private funding support And make it an untenable project to them for them to even bring forward And uh I guess I worry about that a little bit Well, Andy if I may um, I um, Lisa in just a moment, but um because now we're different Right, I know You're concerned, but uh, you know, that's a discussion. I think for the council Um, I appreciate you raising it I think I thought I've had excuse me. It's a thought I've had more than once going through this But it's not an issue of clarity consisting of actual ability My concern is that A contractor Can do what they want If there is no penalty And we've seen that in amherst and we've seen it all across the country. Um, and so it seems to me That knowing in advance What your contract is and what the town requires May or may not affect whether a contractor decides to Build in amherst But I I think I think your concerns Protect the developer the contractor much more than it protects anyone who is working for them And that concerns me Lisa I guess just since the issues raised I think it can sometimes get lost as we're going through so much minutiae and line by line and um How about wording it this way or wording it that way of what the ordinance does and It's actually doesn't have very many requirements on a developer or a contractor It is saying essentially Follow the law Follow all wage laws Don't hire a contractor that's recently violated wage laws And add some diversity work not not even you have to but try to have diversity On the project And show us documentation that you're doing this and if you do have contractors that break the law Then there are repercussions for those So we have not found where ordinance similar ordinances have been put into place that it's had A chilling effect of all of a sudden developers are not wanting to receive tax relief or contracts If in the beacon example, I think had this been in place prior to that tax relief Agreement being executed with them. I think and I'm starting a construction I think there would have just been greater care put to making sure that wage theft doesn't happen The developer wouldn't have wanted to have the liability Of having clawback so they would have put a requirement in their Their general contractor's requirement that there's repercussions for you if you have wage theft The Keith construction in this case wouldn't have wanted to have that liability So with every sub they would have just put in a clause if if you cheat your workers Um, you will be responsible for you know, the payback That is required under this and that would have been We think prevented a sub from cheating their workers and that's really what the this I law is about is preventing wage theft from happening And any developer that plans to hire contractors that are going to pay their workers as they're supposed to be Should not be in fear that this is going to prevent them from wanting to do development I think what we're hearing here Is something that definitely should happen at the council again When this comes up for council action this conversation with the sponsors present including lisa and I assume maybe chris as long with the consular sponsors because Your contributions have been helpful to me But they would be helpful to me at a council meeting when i'm trying to decide how to vote on this Um right now um it seems that so I assume you will be there for sure and That will be an important part of the council discussion sorry Usually they call right back. That's what happens. I usually have to take the phone off and like Um, so what you just offered lisa and what chris has offered in this conversation Well, hopefully also happened again At the council meeting when the counselors other than myself and andy and others who are present here Will also be wrestling with this these kinds of contributions that you're making are extremely valuable um I think george and i'm back. I'm just I think that as far as this committee goes this stays in it stays in as it's written um, I again have questions about the escrow And again, I'm caught because that's a substantive issue and it's something I bring up at council Um, and so i'm torn because I want to ask it, but it's really not appropriate Um, so maybe i'm just going to leave it for the moment. I can ask it offline or whatever or at the council meeting I think this stays as it is. I mean in other words too stays in um because right You think they're consistent actionable I actually agree with it, but that's that's a whole other question Um, let me just ask You to clarify Are you saying it stays in The way it's presently presented No, no, right. Rejecting everything that's in blue. No, in other words the sponsors want to uh Everything that's been rejected should be put back in because the sponsors want it And there's no issue of consistency clarity or actionability and the the lawyer's comments um Don't address that at all. There's a matter of risk And that's something the council is going to have to wrestle with And i'm going to have to wrestle with but and so my my question really is not the gl question and it's It's a council question. Yeah, I mean I'm not going to stop anybody from asking them because I think we've had some fruitful discussion today But it does bring up Andy's point and we've had this issue before with gl and I've been on the other side of it Um, so it probably serves me right but If you want to raise a point Lynn, please go ahead, but I guess to answer your initial question This stays the way the sponsors wanted it unless my colleagues on the committee feel it needs to be Right, I don't see how we can reject what they're offering On the grounds of consistency actionability or clarity I'm sorry Lynn That's fine. Okay. I'm just trying to figure out I I'm just sitting here thinking about how We Work through all of this at the council moment. That's absolutely and I I hear you 100 percent That's all it's not gls problem. Well, I mean gl produces a report that Hopefully will be of some use in that process, but yeah But this technically is not even something gl would talk about in its report Well, that's yeah, that's I know I think the memo could make the point that certain issues were raised x y and z that were beyond gls purview But the council should be aware of them I mean, I just want to make sure the counselors Um Are aware of the fact that the attorney had concerns at certain points That in some cases we um decided That we're not we we just did not accept or we just ignored And so they need to know that So I guess and I'll just work with the sponsors on the The presentation and the memo Which we've now been using for bylaws. Yes. Yes. I hear you And hopefully I will be in that conversation too at least what you want from gl. I mean But yeah And I assume you want it for a Monday, but I don't know And so I'm whether there's a vote today or not. I know I I think well, anyway, we'll see So we have made our way through this bylaw I'm sorry There's more There's this one last one So kp law struck requirements for successors and interests the reasoning um kp law indicated was they were concerned about enforcement of it and mainly Whether the definition what the definition of success or an interest was and whether such a definition was truly enforceable um in terms of if You know when it came to contracting or tips, um, what happens a lot is A contractor will a person will You know incorporate or do business as one name Violate a whole bunch of laws under that name and then get called for that. And so then they'll just declare, you know, just just Go away with that company and then declare business under another name And do the same thing under that name and the the sponsor's goal of this section Which it once kept in is to say hey if you do that You're you're not going to get our contracts. You're not going to be allowed to to do that. Um And kp law understood that but was concerned about the How it could be enforced if it was in there How would you determine that at least one of the same principles was that or this so again more of an enforcement thing um We are unaware of a way we could pull a state definition of success or an interest into this To better clear that up um, I know lisa and chris can probably Explain a little bit more, but but we think it's an extremely important We're quite Part of this bylaw To stop wage theft and so we intend to keep it in Here it seems the attorney has A more substantive objection at least to my limited legal mind Um, since they don't even know what the term how to define the term So it does seem to be an issue of actionability And clarity for that matter um We're using terms that aren't defined apparently in law Well, yes We're the town of amherst. I mean this is okay. Um, I mean we can define anything we want But um, if the attorney says that, you know, they're not on any awareness of this having any legal meaning um So I guess the question is I don't think it was that they didn't know there was legal meaning Yeah, it was whether as defined The town would actually be able to identify a successor and interest Just practically just practically. Yeah practicality not risk Um Chris or lisa anything to say about this The next tool we we agree that there we might you know, the town might not be able to figure out successor You know the bad apple Um, but if this is there and the town is able to figure it out and wants to go after that bad actor They can so it's it's eliminating a tool that the town could use Um Will it be used not sure It's up to the it's up to the town to you know, make that decision the town has you know discretion about how to enforce any of these Um provisions, I think lisa's point is is an important one Most of this ordinance is designed to give the town tools To use if in situations where it determines that something needs to be done They have the tools to do that Most contracts I have ever seen have had Requirements around successor contractors, right? um There is a definition the feds might have one in you know Circular 21 so I I I hear the legal point At the same time, I would certainly expect any contract from the town to have a successor clause in it That probably has pretty standard language Um, that that the attorneys would be familiar with This is a clearly language that at least kp laws not familiar with And there are attorney Yeah, maybe they can come up with something better Okay, well Not there it's not there by law Um Okay, we go back up to the definitions at the beginning to see where this success Our definition is number one A contractor or sponsor that one has at least one officer One of the same principles or officers as the prior contractor or sponsor and Is engaged in the same or equivalent trader activity. So the definitions in here It's that one and two Right here Up in did you get that definition from any particular source? It was pulled from a A bylaw or an ordinance from another town that's adopted it I assume chris and lisa would be able to probably tell you which one but it's common in You know lin or springfield or these other towns, right? It was in several Okay, I I have to assume state bidding law has a definition of successor I just can't believe they don't Well, it is something I could take back to kp law for for clarification Um Not necessarily. I mean, we still leave this as it stands, but I could say Um, can they help us with language here Or not. I'm just that's a suggestion not a Right now. I have only one item to take to them, which is fine. I'm not sure you want me to take this to them Um, but I guess the question would be Um, is there language that you could point us to? I don't know I mean in our meeting she didn't have language to point to she just deleted it Right, right Well, now we're going to ask her very specific. We're going to make a very specific request find us language It's not, you know, please please do it. You know, you're our lawyer find this language that uh, or you may feel this is adequate, I mean as Pat has pointed out This already exists in other towns and cities Um in other bylaws or ordinances um, so All right, you know, we tend to overthink things. I know um Seem to be it just easy of jol That's her time. I want it. I want a successor Section in here so And you'd like it worded appropriately. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I can Yeah, okay. I can take that to kp law But again, it it fits in that category of You know of whether or not It's a jol I think it's an issue of clarity um Yeah, and I think action ability to some degree, but certainly I think it's certainly perfectly within jol's purview um We don't understand this term the lawyer doesn't understand it. I mean we just need clarity with this this term And we ask our lawyers for help You say they're unaware of state different All right. Well, this does seem like the end unless somebody has yet another page that I'm not aware of This is the end of the responsible employer. I mean it feels Wait a minute. There's another page here. We missed it. Um, and we have gone through a line by a painful line And we have I believe with Mandy's help Produced a final version of it But there are two items that you would like me To get further input from kp law on Do we need to vote on this? And we think normally we would And we vote on it without Resolution of the two issues that we're going back to kp law about um so As sponsor or even as a jol member Um, this was as a sponsor. This was proposed as a double package and Pat's probably going to yell at me and hate me man It's a double package if if go well is not going to consider the other part today um The wage and tip theft portion today Um, it might be better to not vote today and wait to see if kp law because it's not As a sponsor. I don't necessarily want one to come up without the other. Yeah, I agree I agree We're not going, you know, we're coming on two hours if if jol as a committee is going to decide to stop here And not continue on with the review of wage and tip theft It's not as important to vote today Yes, I agree I certainly would like to keep this meeting Jolene can I also At that this would not we will not take one to the council without the other Right, we want them both to come up. Thank you. I'm just trying to get my order straight. Yeah Thank you for being willing to take some Um This raises a just the timing question for jol. Um, we do have a scheduled meeting for next week I was hoping to cancel that But um, perhaps we should meet at our scheduled time next week I'd be happy to do that I can't say I'd be happy but Happiness is an English English strange English You want to tackle this so we would tackle the other half of this uh a week from today And hopefully by that point, um, I would have answers to the two things that you've asked me to look into And this one can be presented with a clean copy then too Okay, okay, and The only thing I'm going to ask um In the intro and that is to start thinking about how To raise the issue of risk Um As you make a clean copy That's to use a sponsor That and Kathy a sponsor. Yeah, how this gets presented to the council We have to bring that to the full council even though jol's not Yeah And I don't know whether that would be a tso Rediscussion or not. I don't think they've ever Had that experience, but then they don't have a lot of depth experience anyway I don't think she realized george that you're on tso. I think she meant that as tso She she was not speaking of our depth Which is extensive in other areas She just meant to you so That's how I'm going to interpret that Thank you All right Go ahead All right, um I would like to I'm sorry Let's not vote this let's not vote today. I don't think we're able to we cannot vote today Um, but we are agreed it seems by consensus to meet a week from today. I will make sure that gets posted I will bring answers to those two questions. Mandy will provide us with a clean copy of of the wage tiff Responsible by Responsible whatever we'll get that presented. We will go through The wage theft bylaw and hopefully be able to vote on both On the question about the wage theft one. Yep. Um If the sponsors are accepting the changes that kp law made to Or suggested to that bylaw, can we just accept them and present them as non attractive changes? Um, so it's a cleaner copy for next time or do you Have to keep all of those changes or just present only the ones that are still disagreed upon Can I can I just ask you? um, because I have mine mine's all marked up. Can you just explain to me color wise in the printed copy? is the red the sponsors changes So I don't know what yours came up with. Um, the ones marked author We had some issues with some some background Accepting of stuff the ones marked author which on the screen here are purple Um in wage and tiff theft, but who knows what color they are in yours are what kp law suggested The ones jump in I'm sorry to interrupt. I I I need to jump off for a 12 30 call. Um, yeah So thank you. I chris will not join us next week, but it um, I'd be happy to Even just listen in um to the meeting or be there if you have any questions on the wage and tip That would be great. Lisa. Thank you And I'll I'll sign off today as well. Thank you for your consideration Including us. Thanks. Yes. Thank you for your help Well, I guess so so to go back to lin if it's marked author And whatever color your author color is that's kp law changes Whatever color is my color in the comments. Mandy joe hannacky. That is sponsor changes Okay Thank you. So so to give you an idea whatever color your changes in the top Penalty block are those are kp law changes throughout Whatever color the aggrieved party deletion is that is sponsor changes So just up front you want to keep the $1,000? No, we don't want to keep the $1,000 I want to keep it just just to section f retaliation Applicable so so that that would be my next question. So do you want us to present next week with all of these changes? Still showing us changes or do you want us to only? highlight those that Are still in disagreement. So for example I could present a bylaw that shows the up to $300 per violation With the $1,000 find per aggrieved party deleted completely Well fixed completely showing in black because we agree with okay and agree with that change It wouldn't even show a grieve party here if that's what this committee wants And but it would still have the highlighted any violation And the removal of section f retaliation highlighted and still showing a change because the sponsors and kp law don't agree on that change I think we should go with whatever was in the packet today Really? Okay, I was going to actually suggest that If we have agreement between the sponsors and kp law There's no reason for us to Because we're just going to I mean what we on what grounds we possibly disagree right That's my thinking now someone might say well, you know, I've read it and I've got an issue Even though lawyers don't have an issue and the sponsors don't have an issue So we can present both I I can clean it up for those that want to see a clean one And this one can still be in the packet for those that wanted to see what did get changed Either way Accepting what you've agreed on is fine Okay, but I'd prefer is seeing a document that only shows places where you and the lawyers disagree still Yes, okay. That's my preference, but that's one vote two votes You don't count He does Thank you George. That's fine. Okay I I can clean that one up then too, right Someone remind me again because my brain is fried now. What is the other thing I agreed to ask kp law about? They're marked as comments in the document. I'll send you later today. Okay, that's it's I haven't written down somewhere I can't find it Can we agree that the minutes as people had a chance to look to September 2nd minutes if you have I have looked at them. I'm happy with them. Um, I'd like to just adopt them by consensus But if you're not ready, we can put it off till next week Okay a second. All right, so do we need a vote? No, I think it's unanimous. I cannot consensus. I think we're gonna accept it by consensus I will pass them on to Athena as approved um Anything else any Items I I'm still putting off the uh, you may have seen that we did get I did have one. Thanks to Andy. I did Send one question to kp law about the wild animal bylaw. I haven't actually looked at their answer yet Um, apparently it's paul was oppressed by it um, but Do you want me to put that on the agenda for the seventh or not? Yes Have very few differences so I don't think it'll take as long Okay, I think you're right. So I will put that on the agenda after wait theft Discussion of the process for town manager evaluation, etc. I'd like that to be an agenda item For this committee have a resolution george. We have a resolution so maybe the resolution wait theft and The wild animal is enough for one meeting What's the resolution It's about the east west rail east west rail Okay, thank you So it'd be those three items I I could put it on there and obviously we don't get to we don't get to it So maybe I'll put it on there at the end Anything else people have uh upcoming or want to be added at some point You've had public need to do public comment, but there's no public Okay, thank you All right, then I am prepared to declare this meeting of GOL adjourned And my thanks to all of you for Your work today. It's not easy, but important So thank you all and thank you, Emily Yes, thanks, Emily All right I'm heading out Go well