mute people with the ability to unmute yourselves. I'll start a video. If you've got a video, please feel free to put it up.  So tonight is Monday, October 19th, 2020. More time to select board and we're meeting tonight. Zoom. And if we have, well, pardon me, we do have a change, a change to the agenda at 645. Shane was going to be in for animal control and he is unable to make it tonight. So Callie, if you could put him on the agenda for the I already set it up with him for the second at seven o'clock, that would be good. Thank you. Otherwise, now we're going to move right into public comments. So there's a few people here in the line. I don't recognize. There was a Mr. Italiano, he was the first guest or someone I didn't recognize. So I can unmute yourself. Are you here for public comments, sir? Anthony. I don't see him anymore. MRVP. Okay. All right. So why don't, Emily Wood, are you here for public comment? No, I'm not here for public comment. I am a library trustee sitting in. Okay. Thank you for coming to the meeting tonight. And Stefan, how about you? Just listening in. How was your day out on the roads? It was a lucky day. We were expecting some rain and we didn't get it till after we left for the day. All right. All right. So then will, if there's anyone, if there's anyone not certainly that wants to speak to her in public comment, come off mute and you certainly have the floor. All right, Neil, you're all set right now. I guess so. Yeah, I think so, Tom. Is our Kristen and or Lisa on? I think Lisa, I think I saw her get on and I know Kristen plans on or at least on the agenda. So I think there is Lisa and so as long as we at least have one person and she's here, we can go ahead and fact Lisa, do you know if Kristen's gonna be joining? I believe she is. Yeah, she texted me so I think she's planning on 615. Okay, so we'll wait and go to the agenda at 615 with that. Until then, why don't we go ahead and just skip down? So we're not sitting here in silence and we have a few minutes. So I'd like to talk about the truck, old business. And I've got information on the two trucks that we were looking at. So we had the freight liner from New Hampshire freight liner and we had the international from Clark's. And they came out very, very close. There was a difference of $3,932. So the quote from international was quote from a Western Star was 135, 579. And the international was 144,059. There was a difference of 39, 32 and I may have given you one of the incorrect numbers, but I know the difference is $3,932, the international being more expensive. Talking with the guys and they had an opportunity to try to drive and demo both trucks. They prefer the international and we do have an international in the fleet currently. And so I think I, in fact, I will recommend that we look at the truck from Clark's or not look at it, but by that one, if the voters approve, but looking for input from everyone on the line or the board members on the line. I'd say if the guys like the international best, that's the one we should go with. Yeah. And if it was, the question comes and the freight line, I think is a good truck. One of the things that really bothered me most with the guys talking about the freight liner is they said it had lack of power for them. And the mountains and the hills that they're plowing up. Otherwise, some of the other stuff that they didn't like from stereo and to some of the placements of things, I could kind of get over, but the power is something that they can. And also, I guess Rodney did talk about the seat and it would be his truck. So, but I think 4,000 we can probably say, all right, we'll do that for the guys. Gets much more than that. I would say we'd have to, if it was, we'd have to go a different direction. Ray, what's your thought? Yeah, no, I think the international makes a good truck. When you were reading the prices, Tom, you said freight liner, but then you said western star. I don't know. I'm sorry, yeah. The reason I, I'm sorry, Ray, the reason I said western star is the freight liner deal and also deals in western star in the top, his. Oh, okay. And I read it, it says western star. So that's, I meant freight liner. So yeah, so the top two international freight line and as you say, there's significant, the difference is I think something we can live with in, you know, in the national, if they build a better truck, I think we should go with it. Yeah. And we have, nice thing about it is, you know, sometimes they do swap out parts within the garage if something's down. So, you know, I think it's nice to keep it in the same, same manufacturer if we can. And I think this last one, I mean, we've gone away from international for a good reason, I think, and then came back with a new truck engine or whatever they did to it. And it seems to be working out well. So, I will go ahead. If someone wanted to make a motion to accept the proposal from Clark's Truck Center, I would, or I'm sorry, Callie, I didn't ask you what were your thoughts on that. I guess it kind of in dawn as well. Are there any other? I think the international is going to be fine. Now, is this the original truck that we were looking at or a different one? It is. Because I know there was potentially an issue with the first one. So I just wanted to make sure this one was going to be ready in time. That's the only hiccup possibly right there, Callie. And thank you for bringing that up. It is not the original truck that was sold, probably a few weeks, Rodney was called. But they, so what's happening is international has or Clark's has about 15 trucks that are at the body shop to get the bodies on in New York. And they're starting to put them on, they started this week. So they figured it would probably be between the end of October to mid-November before the truck would be available. I don't think that's too big a deal. No, no, that should be good. And I think, and he was, you know, worst case scenario with that. So I think, you know, I think we can make it work there. The one thing, it will be a different color. It will not be red. And there's four different colors to choose from.  And you know, I like it, actually each guy has their own or we have separate colors and it's easier for people to identify them if there's an issue. It's the blue truck or the red truck or the, you know, the white truck. So, and I've never, you know, I've seen a lot of different color trucks than red, plows, snow. So I know it works. Just with Rodney doing this side of the road, we also have Berlin and Berlin runs blue. So if you're looking for a difference in who's actually coming up on this side, then... That's a good, I thank you, Kelly, because blue was a choice.  But, you know, once, you know, the guys or one guy, Rodney can take a look and, you know, get it approved by us. But that will be secondary to making sure that everyone else is comfortable with the purchase. Don, what do you think? Come off, Newt, Don, we can hear you better. Anyhow, okay, here I am. Sorry about that. That's all right. I'll throw my vote in for green. I like the idea of a green truck. But all I was going to really ask was maybe I missed it when you were first launched into this was what, there was a whole thing about the trade in. Are they going to take this truck as a trade or what happened? Yes, they are. Oh, okay. They're giving us $44,547 for the truck. And does that compare pretty well to the other deal we were getting or right in the ballpark or something? Yeah, let me just make sure that thing was right. They came up with another rough. But we are getting a trade. Yeah, it is the $44,547.85 is what we're getting on the trade. Yeah, okay. All right. So now after getting everyone's input, thank you. May I get a motion to accept a proposal, please? I'll make the motion that we accept the proposal from Clark's Truck Center for the International. Thanks. Second. All right, thank you. Any further discussion on the issue? If none, all in favor vote aye. Aye. Aye. All right, and none opposed. Thank you, everyone. All right, so now we must be into, let me make sure to see if there's any one way. Yeah, so Kristen and Laura, I believe are waiting to be let in. Yeah, yeah. I don't know why it's not just admitting and letting them all in, but anyways. All right, let me just put this away. So we have Kristen and Lisa on the call or the meeting tonight. Thank you, ladies, for joining us. So if you want to go ahead, you guys can have the floor and let us know what's going on there. I think there was a meeting the other night. I didn't see. I did read the meeting notes that were posted. Thank you, Kristen, for doing that. I wish you had those. So Kristen or Lisa, however you guys want to do it, go ahead. You want to go ahead, Kristen? Sure. So I think that Lisa had sent you the agenda. Everybody can hear me OK? Just want to make sure. Yes, good. There had been a motion that I believe it was to start thinking about merging, doing talks through COVID. And I believe it was correct me if I'm wrong, Lisa, the merging either for the 22, 23 school year or later. Is that right? The original motion that didn't pass? Yeah, right. And then so that didn't pass. And then there was another motion to try to kind of decouple the conversation about merging the kids and what work needed to be done at the high school from the pre-K through 12 configuration plan. That motion failed as well. So the more motion that did get moved forward. Kristen, we can't hear you. For a sec, you're out. I can step in until that works again if you want. OK. Yeah, so the motion that ended up passing last week basically said that we're going to move forward with the implementation of the middle school merger, meaning just the seventh and eighth, all seventh and eighth years to cross the book for the school year 22, 23. So it would not be for this upcoming fall, but it would be for moving forward for the following school year. So that's not huge news. That's kind of continues us on the track that we've been going on, but it kind of re-inferms and a little bit more of an updated and official way that we're moving forward. And that's the track that the timeline that it seems to be most reasonable to move at. And like I've said before, I think that the school board is really viewing this kind of the whole pre-K through 12 plan now as breaking it into parts. So the middle school merger, specifically the seventh and eighth merger, certainly has the most support across the community. How much support that is, I'm not really sure. But they think that it's going to move easier to break it into parts and move that first. And then I think that the other parts will follow, in my opinion. There was talk about bond work as well, because there were several board members that brought up the issue of there's no funding in place to move those kids, accommodate them, and do work at the high school. So that was also brought up as an issue. I think that's going to be looked at as well in the next coming meetings. So you've seen at least it sounds like you think and you're probably correct that all right, once we get to seventh, eighth move now, we're going to bring over the kids from Moortown or some or enclosed based in. Do you have a sense of a timeline on that, or is that a correct statement? And that's something you think we're headed down the road for? I have no reason to believe that as the board stands now, that's not the majority opinion that those should be the next steps after this merger. Of course, the board configuration will change over the years. I think that's coming down the pipeline, certainly not going to be next year or the year after. Well, I say that right now, it's looking like it's not going to be next year or the year after that can easily change and we've seen it happen before. And so I think, yes, I agree with the statement you made and I don't know about the timeline. I think that right now, they did not include that in the motion for 22, 23. They didn't preclude it either. So it could hop back in there. Isn't 22, 23, isn't that the last year for our superintendent? It will actually be the first year of the new superintendent. First for a new superintendent. OK. Because I think it was a two-year agreement you guys made with her. So yeah, sure. The planning for it will happen while she's still the acting superintendent but the implementation with the new superintendent. And so that could change things too. We don't really know how that will change things. What's your recommendation as a town or as the leaders of our town here? How should we proceed? I mean, I think we all agree that more town elementary is a vital piece of our community and that needs to be preserved. I'm not sure how I feel about the 7th and 8th. Again, you start pulling parts and it's easy to grab other things. So yeah, I guess looking for a little direction or guidance from you folks and then we'll certainly talk to the community as well. But what's the feeling that we should really be proactively looking at options to move out of the union or is that something that needs to certainly be on the burner but nothing to really jump on right now? I'll start and then Kristen, if you want to jump in, feel free. In my opinion, I think that in the ideal world we would be exploring that now. And the reason I think that is because I think it is going to be a long process and there's going to be things that we haven't thought of yet that we'll need to explore more. And I think the more it can kind of be in the forefront of more towners' minds and kind of them aware of what's going on, the better it's going to be for us when we do need to act. And I'm not saying that I definitely think that we should withdraw or not. I just think that- Let's get the facts so we know all right what costs might be, what's- Let's figure out the pros and cons so that when it's decision time we're not trying to figure it all out at the same time as we're trying to make a decision. Kind of a scramble. I think that's something I spoke to, I don't know if you were on last week or last meeting with Neil Nussbaum. He was looking to petition to get a vote going. And at this point, we just need a lot more information. And I think maybe that's something Neil can help us with too if he wants to participate. But yeah, I think we should definitely everything. And someone had some questions. I think you had sent an email and maybe it was Kristen talking about those questions. But I think maybe we should get a committee together or there's probably enough things formed already. But and maybe you can help with that, right? Where should we work or who should we work with or should we form something on our own to gather that information? Yeah, I definitely agree with Lisa. Whether or not to withdraw it from the district, I'm not really sure, but I don't think it hurts to actually see what that entails, what the costs are. So when you do go to the more town people, you can have a better idea of what that means.  So I think that information definitely needs to be found out and that way you have all of it at once. So I do agree with Lisa. I'd also, does anyone have a pulse on kind of if this is happening at other town levels? Like I would imagine that Feaston's having this discussion too, but I don't know if that's true. Yeah, I have not heard much recently, you know, six weeks ago, actually the Feaston Warren, you know, I heard that rumor, they were looking into different options, but I haven't heard anything. Is anyone else that's connected to these things heard anything else? What about you? You're soon to reach. Yeah, I haven't actually, I mean, I heard that rumor as well, but I haven't gotten anything suggesting that petitions have been drawn up where people are going to the select. Well, maybe I'll just have Sasha check with the other boards and just to see if there's been any discussions around school issues and if there is just see what resources they may be looking at, but and then I know there's been some very active people in town as well, so that might be, you know, some people that we can draw in. So yeah, I think that's what we should do is probably get some people together. Pardon me? Well, Laura Schauer had her hand up. Oh, she did. There she is, I can see her right there. I did, I didn't wanna interrupt though. Oh, you're good, Laura, I'm babbling along. Go ahead, what do you have? No, no, it's fine. So I was just gonna say, I always have way too much to say, but I think the seven, eight move is concerning. It's pulling all of our Valley kids out of town, sending them to Duxbury. And I heard Lisa say that seems to have the most support. I don't know if I would agree. I think the school board thinks there's a lot of support. I think that parents of those kids in both sides of the district, at least the way it's planned right now with no additional money and no more room there. I personally find it ridiculous, but you guys know that. But I would say that, like you said, Tom, it just, it sort of starts the domino. Like, okay, we're gonna move these kids and now five, six over in the Valley is ripe to be moved. I also am very concerned that the more town five, six is gonna be brought up in budget season. That they're gonna try to do this again. They're gonna try to get our kids over there in the form of we need to save money. It's COVID, so they have a really good excuse now. Our budget's not gonna pass, people can't afford it. We need to cut wherever we can. So even though it's not in the quote unquote pre-K to 12 plan, I would not be shocked to see it come up this year in budget. So just, you know, I guess be on the lookout for that. And I agree that starting the conversation about leaving should happen sooner rather than later. So, Laura, have you heard of any other towns exploring that? So only a little bit in Fauston and that's just talk among parents. I haven't heard anything official, but I do know that there are people there that are open to it. I think Warren might be the same, although I'll just say this, I was thinking about it. You know, if we withdraw, we're responsible for the debt that the district absorbed when we merged and that puts Warren on the hook for what $2 million was there. So I don't know how realistic that is, but one of the, I did get some feedback from a woman whose name escapes me, who's been working on this statewide, who said that absolutely, if it could be more than one town, the better. So. I wanted to clarify that when I said has the most support, I meant the most out of the three components of the pre-K through 12 plan, not that the majority. No, I know, I know, I know what you badly said. No criticism. There's a, all right. Well, I think I'll need to take some thought with this as far as how to put something together, but if anyone has any ideas of people who would like to run this committee, email me or Sasha, certainly the board as well. I'd like one or two persons on that or we can, a couple of us can switch back and forth. But yeah, anyone with some ideas on how to form this or who to form it with so we can maximum brainpower together to really look at this, because this is something that's, it's not going to be easy or a simple task, but if it's done well, we should be able to prevail with, even if it's forcing the board to look at things a little closer knowing that we are doing this activity. Go ahead, yeah. So I just wanted to say thank you to Kristen and Lisa. For coming tonight and just kind of acknowledging what a big deal it is for them to be coming and speaking so openly with you folks about their feelings about this. There's a lot of, for lack of a better word, peer pressure that's placed on the members of this board really to kind of, I think in particular, to kind of put the squeeze on the representatives from Moretown and Faist and it's really, it's very courageous of them to be here, so thank you, thank you both. And I do, I have plenty of thoughts about this at this point. I guess what I, it would, like I said, I'm not sure what's happening with Warren and Faisten, but I, in thinking about this, I think the best case scenario as to what might end up coming out of all this would be, so before the consolidation, we had six boards and the supervisory union, and now we have the one district, one board. And I think, I think what might work well would be for Waterbury and Duxbury to go back to having their board for the Valley to have a consolidated board with the four Valley towns and then to have a high school board. And then the Valley's district would come up, I think a pre-K through eight as opposed to a pre-K through six, which is what it was before. So that would cut it down from the six boards before to three. And I think that would be something that would make things much more workable in the end. That obviously would involve coordination on part of the other towns, but that just in thinking about this, since we last spoke, I think in my mind, that's kind of a best case scenario for an outcome. So thank you all. Thanks Neil, and Neil, you're certainly spot on with your comments about both Lisa and Kristen. Thank you for having the courage to speak out and say what you feel and really report back. Certainly there is a lot of pressure. I've seen some of the emails that have been sent to you folks from other board members and things that are really not called for. But again, thanks for your time and your service to the community. We all appreciate it. Thanks for having us. Yes, thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. All right, so I'll be looking forward to getting some names and Neil, I'll keep you involved or get you involved, Neil, so that you can participate in this with your energy and expertise. Every day, thanks, Tom. All right, so we're gonna move ahead on to the agenda. At 6.30, we had the energy plan with Dara and Jay. And I think they're both on, or at least I saw Dara and... Hello, yes, it's just me. I think I saw Jonathan as well. Yes, he is right there. Oh, great. So yeah, you got the plan. Yes. So I just wanted to give you a little update on where things stand. We went through the whole planning commission process of developing the enhanced energy plan as an appendix to the town plan. And that included a public hearing that the planning commission organized. And the second step to adoption will be the select board to review the plan and have a public hearing and formally adopt the amended plan. So at this point, there's a little confusion about what the regional planning commission requires of us. When we started this, we thought that by doing an appendix for our enhanced energy plan, we will have to do any changes to our town plan. Since then, I heard something about Waitsfield, who's also working on an enhanced energy plan, finding out that in fact, they had to do some forest integrity updates to their town plan. So I inquired of the RPC. Oh, this is my kitty. Whether that was also true for Moortown. And I got an email back from the RPC that sounded like it said, yes, you need to do some edits to your town plan, not many, but a few around forest integrity in order to meet the new requirements for plans. So Jonathan isn't sure about it and Karen's confused. So we still don't have consensus yet on whether that's required of us or not. So at some point, I imagine this week, we'll know for sure whether that step has to be taken. At which point, I think it would mean that the, in the event that the Planning Commission does have to make edits, we would have to probably do a second public hearing that they host and then you guys could get away with just doing one. And that would cover both the plan and the appendix. But I'm not, you know, I'm not positive about that yet. We're still putting heads together about what is required of us in terms of the full plan. But I thought we could just kind of talk about some of things that are in the plan, some of the activities and pathways that are in the plan that we might want to just get started on regardless of how long it takes to actually formally adopt it. And also whether you do have anything that you noted in the plan in the draft that you would like to change or add to. This would be a good time to talk about it. So yeah, have you guys had any opportunity to look at particularly the Pathways section starting on page 11? There are specific municipal actions that are detailed here as well as other ones that involve the planning commission more and some that are more just on the energy committee in terms of outreach and education type actions. One thing I was there are certainly quite a few. What would be the top like two or three that you would want to start engaging on as soon as possible? Yeah, that's a good question. I was thinking I was going to propose that this fall we start a kind of an assessment of how our town buildings are doing in terms of their energy usage so that we can kind of collect some historical data, maybe five years of it. And then as we make changes going forward they'll have some context for it. It can also help us identify any priorities that we might want to move forward on and things that we might want to identify funding needs for. So the first thing I wanted to ask you guys was would you in order to get the data from Efficiency Vermont on electricity and fuel usage in town buildings, we would need some sort of authorizing letter from the select board permission from the town to have Efficiency Vermont share that data and they would want to have the account numbers provided for the utilities. But Dara, on something like that if you just send us a letter of what you want, we can fill in the blanks. That's great, I'll do that. Okay, so then I thought, so that could be a good project for the fall. We get this data. We also look back at the 2009 and it was done back when Jay was the energy coordinator and Jonathan was on the committee. So we could kind of look back at what was audited and some of the things that may have been completed already. And so then we thought what we might do is reconvene with you in January and have an update on what we found and whether we think we should do another audit of buildings based on what we see in the data. So we thought that would be a good place to start and then we'd also like to contribute a report for the town report from the energy committee that could describe our work on the energy plan, any progress we've made with that in terms of adoption and then kind of rough out some goals for the year in a short piece for the town report. So yeah, those were the things I thought kind of would make sense to start with. They're pretty easy. I've already got the town enrolled in the button up program and you might have noticed some posting on Front Porch Forum, sharing all the various resources. There's quite a lot for homeowners on the weatherization front, but the energy plan is more comprehensive than just buildings. It's also transportation. So on the transportation front, there is an action proposed in the draft plan for assessing town vehicle miles traveled. So I don't know if that's something that you as a select board would want to track like how or have a way to track town vehicle fuel usage or have any goals around that in terms of. Yeah, no, I think that's good. And I think there's things in places the guys are always reporting the fuel to a vehicle and such, but there's probably not a lot. So I think we probably have the raw data that you may need. It just needs to be plugged into something. You know, a formula to spit out what we're looking for because I know what we put into each truck and I know how many miles they drive. So. Right. Okay, well, maybe I'll include that in this draft that I send you on the building front. Just some thoughts about the transportation related metrics that we could start getting some data for. And you know, that's the kind of stuff as we get this data that we can we can share in future reports. We were thinking we would have, you know a meeting with you once a year go through where are we today and how things changed over time. And there's also a new data report that the Regional Planning Commission is going to be putting together with town level data. So we can include that to share at those meetings. And then kind of, you know, think about things that we would like to do or pursue in terms of funding for the town. So maybe those are some things we can start to talk about on a January meeting. I can reach out to Sasha about getting on an agenda. Yeah, absolutely. And I think the few things or the couple of things that you are going to embark on this fall is not a lot of false coming and going very quickly. You know, it's good, it's a good start. But circling back, as soon as you know if you need to have two hearings or just one, if you can coordinate and I know because we want to make sure we don't miss the getting in the town report and getting on for the town meeting. So, you know, we need to make sure we've got our meeting. You have your meeting and we have ours. So as soon as you know, let Sasha know so we can have our public hearing. So again, we have that timeline so there's nothing missed as far as those issues. That sounds good. Jonathan, I don't know, did you want to add anything about, okay, so we will get to the bottom of it and be in touch about that. Can I bring up one, can I bring up one quick thing? Oh, sure. Tom? Yeah, of course. So I'm looking at the report. I don't really know what page I'm on but the part about transit. Yep. Just wanted to alert you or at some point coming up where we're going to have Green Mountain Transit is coming to a meeting or they're going to be on a Zoom meeting to talk to us. So when we find out, I'm not sure when that date is but maybe when they're on, you guys, you could join the meeting as well to hear as they're coming on to see how communities can use, utilize the service more. And certainly what you're saying in the report is important for us all to think about alternative transmutation, so. Yes, I would be happy to join that meeting. Great. Remember to invite me or send me the date. We can do that. Yep, there's four other people who help us remember. I know, we all need help. No, I for sure remember. Great. Great. Well, thanks. Yeah, that's, so Sasha, this week, if you can look at that and give us an update when that person can get here. And also the other person I know I think we were waiting on or need to get back to is the lieutenant from the state police as far as people visiting the meetings here. So a lot of topic there, but while I remembered that. But thank you guys for coming in. Dara, Jonathan, Dara for your input. If there's anything going forward that you need from us now and, you know, the public forums let us know. We'll do. All right, thank you all. All right, thanks a lot. Thanks for your work on that. You're welcome. Thanks for all of your good work. How have you been hanging in there during this zoom? Yeah, well, I think it's I think everyone's getting a little bit more comfortable with it. You know, we're I think because, you know, so many things are happening now and in this platform, you know, you're either going to figure it out or you get left behind. But so if you make it out all right, everyone else, you know, we're getting by. Keep it. I spend delightful to see all the improvements in town. The village looks awesome. The bridge, the sidewalks. Yeah, it really is. It's I can't wait. Hopefully next year we can have a more fest and celebrate all the the nice things that have happened in the last year or so. Is the parking lot ever going to get paved? Is that part of any of this improvement stuff going on? Yeah, there's some stuff going on now, Jonathan. Probably John could fill you in on that. We'll eventually take care of that parking lot. OK. Yeah, right now there is there's no plans for that. I believe there will be paving by the town office. Ray might remember that. But in terms of the rest of it. Last I know it was we were looking at Stamat. Just wonder. All right. OK, all right. So is there anything else or anything for the energy plan, folks, Dara or Jonathan? All right. So we'll go ahead a little bit again. Thanks, folks. All right. Bye bye. All right. So as I mentioned earlier, the agenda is changing as a chain could not make it tonight. He'll be here on the second. So let's go ahead and move on to reports. So Sasha, you have any reports or communications for us? And Mike Woods sent an email just before the meeting started on arrows and emissions. I don't know if anybody had a chance to look at it. I did not. I don't think anyone probably did. It was I saw it come in, but I just didn't have an opportunity. So yeah, you want to put it on the agenda for the next meeting. Yeah, please, if you would. OK. Yep. And. Geraldine gave me a contract for the next sidewalk and the board just needs to approve it. I think Ray has is going to sign it for her. So we just need to have board approval on stand to contract. All right. And again, that's just for the planning. The next side of the next sidewalk is not quite the next sidewalk, but planning of the next sidewalk. Yes. And then Steve Robbins sent me an email just before I left today asking about meeting in the town hall. And I told him that it's in the works, but he's concerned that the next meeting they're going to have will probably need to be inside or just go back to virtual. So yeah. And we and maybe they're going to go virtual. They have to just stay virtual until, you know, we can get a chance to sort out how we're going to do meetings, which is after the election. Right. OK. I think that's how we know how we've left it right now. Yeah. Yep. I think it's after the 1st of January. Yeah. So we left it. And my next thing was Jerry Kassel's called and he's got something going on in the village this weekend. He would like to be able to borrow eight tables from the town hall. Well, Sasha, can you say it again? Jerry Kassel's. That thing that he's got going on this weekend. He would like the tables for it. And he wants to use those from the town hall. Yes. So and this is not a town sanctioned event. I know that originally that had been put out there that it was part of the one of the committees. And what I think is happening is something that Jerry's doing and then wants to donate the money to this such committee, which is fine. We really appreciate that. But I just want to say it's not a town sanctioned event. Um, now what was that? I'm sorry, Tom, to what committee I didn't get. What is he donating it to? It is the what's the LSM. It's our local service needs committee. Yep. And so that was and I saw that out on. Local service needs committee. That's Cheryl in Michelle. I think Sasha might be on this as well or not. And, you know, they're the ones that are reaching out when those other third parties can, as far as people that need assistance. You know, and they might send someone to to us of the board to under our Charles Davis fund or they may recommend, I know, last year Michelle and her family. Did some work for someone in town. They, you know, you know, finished up some building and in actually donated lumber. So that's what that is. And so I think that's probably a reason behind his wanting to donate to that committee. So, you know, if the tables aren't being used, I don't have a problem with it. But they would have to be some kind of transfer and also some kind of way to make sure that they were sanitized before they came back in. Right. Does everyone think that's possible or what's everyone's thoughts? That's exactly what I was going to say, Tommy. They're not being used, but how we're going to take care or who's going to take care of that part of it. So section of the tables when they're done.  And I'll speak with Corey at the library. Make sure she's comfortable with it. And Cheryl and she seems to be watching this stuff closely as all of us are and should be. Because I like to be able to have the use of the tables, but I just want to make sure that it's not contaminating people or building. Is there what's everyone? Is everyone feel that's OK? Or is it or are people more in the fun of just I just don't want to be used. Not the table basement. So it must be, you know, could feel easy just to get them out of the basement of that back door. Yeah, I think out the back door past the the post office setup. And if there's and if there was one person doing it and then they sprayed them down with. You know, some fact, and before they brought them back in, I think would probably OK. But I'll look into it if that's all right. Yeah, I would be fine with them doing that. As long as they were down before they came back in, I think that would be fine. Yeah, same with me. All right. So Sasha, you can communicate that and talk with with Jerry and see what type of plan. And then if you could check with me, let Corey just check with me and then we'll check with Corey and Cheryl in as well. OK. You were talking about the Charles O'Devis fund. Is there a motion for that? Yeah, I'll get to that in the old business later. OK, and I wanted to see if there was time that anybody could stop in and sign some warrants this week. Just want to throw it out there. They're stacking up again. All right, I can make it in one morning. If everyone could take a time to try to stop in, I Sasha would appreciate that. Yes, thank you. And the minutes from the last meeting get approved for September 21st. So I just remind that. That's what I have. Thank you. Yes, thank you. John, what you got for us? OK, the financial review committee met and we talk quite a bit about the truck, actually, and they're fine. They're fine with the committee's fine with doing a financing through the bank. And the one thing that they brought up is that. Because of COVID, there's no way of. Talking to the public before they vote and it's probably going to be quite a surprise when they turn that ballot over and they see that item. So, you know, we should probably have something on Front Porch Forum about that. Absolutely, I agree with you, John. I was going to bring that up because I have already had a couple calls on that. And the people were fine with it, but they just. As you mentioned, hadn't heard anything about it.  So, yeah, why don't we I'll put something out. I'll have Sasha put something out on Front Page Forum, Front Porch Forum. The next day or so. So everyone's aware of what it is, especially now that we know what we're getting. I thought about doing it earlier, but I think this is an appropriate time. People, you know, they're opening the ballots and wondering what that is. OK, that's that's good. And we also talked about the about a capital budget and. That's that was kind of because of COVID put on a back burner and so on. So there's renewed energy there. Bob Holden is kind of spearheading that and with Charlene's help. And so they'll work on that and we'll probably take a look at that come January. Good. And the other item I had was that phone call that the Charlene received. Tom, it was she forwarded it to both you and me, that guy from Bristol. And all our withdrawal from the union. I didn't call him. I don't know if you you did or not. Which one was it again, Tom? It was it was somebody from Bristol. They weren't on a school board or anything. But they were very curious about how we were handling any withdrawal. Oh, OK. The Bristol, yeah. No, I did not. But something that actually want to do that, that would be. That would be good. OK, I can do that. Yeah, if you don't mind. That was one other thing I had. I was thinking about where I had another call from some from Middlebury, but it's something different. Anything else, John? No, that's it. How about you, Ray? I have nothing to report. And Kelly, I had a fantastic chat with Neil on Tuesday. I had called him because I had some questions for him about pulling out of the school district. And we had a really good conversation about timelines. And though there isn't a timeline to kind of. There's not a set date where if it's past this time, you can't. Pull out. But one thing to think about in this process is that. Everything has to be finalized by July 1st. If we were going to do that. So if things changed in January. We just have to think about that timeline of things needing to be finalized by. It's either June 30th or July 1st. But but it was a very informative conversation. Good. So we do well to make sure we get our ducks in a row. So we if we need to make a decision, sounds like it could be something that happens fairly quickly. Well, it does and it doesn't because you kind of have to wait for the state to approve things, right, which can be sticky. Absolutely. But all right, well, that's good. I'm glad. Thanks for taking the time to call him and getting informed. Anything else, Kelly? Nope, that was it. All right, Don, how about you down there in the left? Joe, I have a question for John at your financing, your financial committee meeting. Did you guys get to talk about anything about? You know, thoughts in the future about tax payments? No, we did not talk about that. OK, because that we talked about it, that that was going to you guys might look into that at some point. And then so my other question is should not to John, but to to the board, do we want to have any thoughts or is there any idea about Halloween in the village and what's going to happen? I mean, I know some other towns have been talking about it. And it's been in, you know, communities are thinking about it. I just didn't know that we play any role in that. Or should we be thinking about it or trying to help her? Well, I think I would support. And it's usually the school. There's a school committee that usually put on if I'm correct. I'm not opposed to to it. If there's activities going on or some type of trick or treating, you know, I have seen some things, you know, where there's been recommendations on how to do it successfully. So I don't know what what has been happening as far as. You know, organization. Yeah, does anyone have kids that that's been talked about or anyone have any idea? I've just seen a couple of things and but other than that. No, I haven't seen anything for more time, but it usually gets quite a crowd. So I'm sure some people are thinking about it. Yeah, I think typically there's there's I'm not going to say hundreds, but there's a lot of kids there and in parents alike. So, you know, nothing that I know much about. Right. Is the fire department getting well to that last year?  As of this year, I wasn't really planning for anything because I don't know how to implement it in a in a safe manner. I'm open to the idea. I just don't know how to implement it safely. Right. All right. So, yeah, let's I guess on this point, you know, maybe I don't want to proactive starting something, but if something was in the plans or the town, either the school people were planning something and needed a small donation for candy or something like that, it's something I think we could probably do. Let's wait to see if we hear from them or someone can reach out to them as well. But again, not something I've really thought much about. I just didn't know if, you know, only just because of all the stuff about social distancing and mask. And I suppose if a household doesn't want to participate, that's in the village, they just won't have their lights on or something. I don't know. Yeah.  I mean, I'm not saying. And I'm not saying you are, but like you said, I think if people don't want to participate, they'll shut their lights down. And, you know, I hope there's something that can be safe out there that kids can can do.  So, yeah, OK. Certainly not against anything, but have not heard anything. All right, I just didn't know if we were that's yeah, that's all I had. I'm good. All right. Well, thank you, John. What did I have? I had things we talked about. I didn't have a call from someone in Millbury on the end of last week. I think it was Thursday or Friday, probably Friday. They had just got a stone ship from being behind one of the dumb trucks on the understate spoke with the driver of the truck and his tarp was down. So at that point, it's just these are road hazards and we don't we don't submit those to insurance, nor do we pay them.  They're, you know, they're in pits and things. The guys, I think do a good job of trying to do a walk around. I reminded them to do a walk around once they're loaded or have unloaded. But as long as their tarp is down, we're not liable. And certainly in this instance, it didn't sound like it was something that we should be liable for. Other than that, I think. All set, we have some. Exactly a session business that we need to go into tonight. As well, I'd like to do that at the end of after new business. But other than that, I think. We're going to have a couple of things for old business. But until then. Yes, that's it. I'm sorry, I'm just reading the note that came in. But I guess the only thing we have here left at this point is to look at the minutes and if I could get a motion on the minutes for nine twenty one and five. I actually had some corrections to talk about. OK. And I don't know, Sasha, you got my email about it. Correct. Yes, I did. OK. Under new business where it says the second paragraph says race spoke with Dean Moulton about his property pins. The town will probably end up relocating them. I believe that we should say replacing them. They won't be relocated. So, yeah, yeah, right. And and then the executive session. The wording, it's I think it's it was two separate executive sessions. So they didn't be lumped together because the reasons were different. OK. So the first one would be that after making a specific finding that premature general public knowledge would clearly place the public body or a person involved at a substantial disadvantage, Tom made the motion to move Tom made the motion to go into executive session and so on. And then the time wasn't there as well. It was Tom moved and race. John, I have those. Yeah. And the times I have right in front of me was seven thirty two. And then we went back into the second one at seven thirty three. OK. So then once you move out of that executive session, then Tom would make a second motion to go into executive session. And this one did not fall under that number one on the statutes. It's number three, the appointment or employment or evaluation of a public officer or employee, so on and so forth. OK. And oh, I'm sorry. The most Tom moved to go into executive. I'm sorry. The first one where you were dealing with the substantial disadvantage, you would make the time would make the motion to discuss the Charles L. Davis fund. It doesn't really fall under anything in one. But, you know, it's definitely definitely is would fall under that. They don't specifically list something like that, but it would fall under that. So that's that's the second one. Would be. I don't agree with the appointment or employment or evaluation and so on, spelled out. And I think that's that's it. That would be the second executive session. OK. This is for the last meeting, right, John? Correct. OK. Sasha, there was no action taken after either of those executive sessions. OK, thank you. And then when Tom made the motion to come out of the executive session, it was just for that. I believe adjournment came after that. Yes. That's all the changes I have. Thank you, John. OK, so I'll make the motion to prove those minutes with those changes. OK. Second. Any further discussion? All in favor vote aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you. Thank you, John. OK. And all right. So let's go ahead and move on. I hate to be technical. All right. That was ten five. Yeah, I'm just dead. What about nine twenty one? John, are there any changes on nine twenty one? Not that I have. So we accept the minutes of September 21st as written. Second. Any further discussion on that? All in favor vote aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you. Thank you, Sasha, for keeping us in line. Thank you. That's why you're here. All right. I'm just trying to find. Oh, I can't find it. All right. So let's go ahead and, you know, one other thing I did want to report out is yesterday morning around five thirty. I got a call from the road department or it was going to the road department on an accident on Stevens Brook Road. And they took out the guard rails between on Stevens Brook Road right right after Bad Hennessey or right before Bad Hennessey Road. So Rodney went up, put some barrels up and he called Lafayette this morning and Lafayette's coming in as soon as possible to to install some used guard rail in that area. There's water exposed so there's nothing that can wait on. I looked at it as well. I think it's probably around 60 or 50. So, you know, they'll get that in by mid November. We're also pursuing the driver of the car to get reimbursed for that. That stuff. Sasha's called the state police or as I guess step on, I actually got some information and I got Rodney sent me, you know, a picture of the license plate and such. So I don't think it'll be too hard to hunt them down. Hopefully no one got hurt. But looking at it, it was it was a pretty good action. A major accident. All right, so old business for old business, the person I'd like to do is make a motion. To use the Charles of Davis fund. To aid a more town couple in their, their struggles, I guess. I guess that's the best way to put that. It's what we talked about in executive session the other, the other night. I just would like to a motion to make that. I guess legal. If you will. Thanks, John. Any further discussion. Okay, all in favor. Hi. Hi. Hi. And Ray, it will thumbs up from you from if you're going to be on mute. Very good. Thank you. So she will let them know and. Take care of that bill that they had provided us. So we're lucky that that we have that option. And so certainly if anyone knows a couple in more town that is suffering. I think it's a good idea. I think that meets that requirements, make sure they come to the board. Is there any other old business? Yeah, I just wanted to. Ask Ray a couple of things actually. What did you think about the wide shoulder on the west side of 100 being the village? I like it. I was hoping. Okay. I was hoping actually it would be a little wider. I mean, it's basically kind of like the width of the sidewalk. And so that was there. I think that's, that's probably as best as we're going to get. I was. Actually, I thought it was wider than what I was expecting. Another great to me. Okay. And any word from. Okay. Any word from pike on. Now that the weather's a little colder, they. Yeah. I haven't heard anything back from them at all. You know, they're not. You know, that's a separate contract. And I think we have told them that they need to go out there so we can close out our contract. But. I think they'll get there when they get there. But I can, I would talk to the pike again tomorrow. See if they. At least it was a date. I'll do that. I will. I'll reach out to them tomorrow. Okay, great. And, you know, and I think. Well, I just wanted to comment, John, on the, the. The walkway now in the village. I think when they went through, they pulled out what was. And I think you said it, what was there of the. Existing sidewalk. And if they were to do any more than it would start getting into. You know, people's property, where's the property line? And what are we taking? So. You know, where's the, the right away? So I think. We couldn't really do much more without. Maybe perhaps going down places we didn't want to go. But it. I think it's wide enough to get people. You know, an opportunity to walk down that side of the road without tripping. They certainly need to, you know, mind where they're going so they don't wander into the road, but certainly better than what we have. And looking forward to that next sidewalk going there. Exactly. Oh, go ahead, Don. I just have one question on the sidewalk. And maybe this is something from last year. And I just never really grasped what. Was happening, but what doctors brook that bridge. Is the side, that's how it's going to stay until that bridge gets repaired someday or what happens there. No, that's how it's going to stay until that bridge is repaired. Okay. Just so you get a little background. They initially came with a proposal to put in a. There were a couple different and they were very expensive bridges, pedestrian bridges, you know, upwards of 75,000 for just the bridge itself to set across doctors brook. Things that were silly and then they were going to set something on beside the existing bridge and common sense prevailed and decided that they would do it when they put a new bridge in. I guess the only question is how long it's going to take them before they put that in bridging. And I think we all think it's sooner than later, but I think they may have other thoughts on that. Right. Okay. I figure that was it. Thank you. Yep. And then another question for it for you, Tom, I know I keep bringing this up, but did you speak with Cheryl about the. I did. No, I didn't. I spoke with him with the fact that I asked her to look into it. I did not hear back. Okay. I will follow up with her tomorrow. On that. Okay. But no, thanks. But it is something I have been thinking about or wanting to get finished up. That's all I have. All right. Okay. All right. Anyone else any old business? One of the other things from down below, we have the, the CAI. Tools. We had the presentation. I really like that. Should we have. Him come back and give a quick presentation to. The listeners and such so we can. You know, perhaps put that in the budget for this year. I think it's a great opportunity to go in and, you know, look at their, their land parcels online and. You know, do a number of different things, but something I thought that would be beneficial that Cheryl and was. Thought would help as far as. You know, people coming in the office and serving people a little bit better that way. Seeing no opposition or hearing no opposition to it. I'll have them reschedule. I'll have them come back and give us a quick brief. Overview with the. With the list or so they can, you know, voice any concerns they might have with it. Because it would probably affect them more than most people. The budgets. I'd like to see. I think you've sent things out. But if we could get budgets back so that our second meeting and. You know, November, we could start reviewing those. That gives people a month to put their budgets and. Together and I don't think that's too hard to do. Second meeting in November. Yeah. So if they, and if we could get them. You know, like that Thursday or before. So you could, we could review them or. You know, I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. And then again, the transportation. That Don was talking about earlier. Just if you can follow up with. Them to see when they might. Be in and also. I have her on an agenda. I think it's November. Okay. I'll get back to you guys with that. Yep. I'm sure you put Dara on that invite as well. So she's aware of that. Yep. And also. Lieutenant from the state police as well. And follow up with them and see what he can. Can join us. Okay. All right. Is there any new business? No. All right. We'll see none or hearing none. I don't have anything. So what I'd like to do at this time is. Move into executive session. And this was, would be. It was reason number three. It was the employee. John, could you read that again? Of course. There we go. Okay. So that's the appointment or employment or evaluation of a public officer or employee. Okay. Provided that the public body shall make a final decision to hire or appoint a public officer or employee in an open meeting and shall explain the reasons for its final decision during the open meeting. So if I second that. Okay. Any further discussion? I'll, I'll. Favorite boat. I. Okay. Thank you for attending the meeting tonight. Sasha, I'll get you some times that we come out. And if there's any action. Otherwise. Good night, everyone. You can click off. We'll click the off. But otherwise. Have a good night. Thanks everyone.


Rhyon i ddiwrnodau cyfnodau y ddiobl Skolbeth eisiau ar gyfer lateral i ddiogelwadau Paedwyrol Cymru. Rwy'r ddiobl cyfnodau yn ddiogelwadau eisiau i ddiogelwadau eisiau i ddiogelwadau membeth i eu cael y ddiogelwadau, mae'n digwydd o'r ddigelwadau i ddiogelwadau? Fel amser, mae'n ddiynau anghybreddau i ddiogelwadau ac i ddiogelwadau i ddiogelwadau ei dd驦io i ddiogelwadau. Nighting officer and tonight were joined by my constituent Ron Beatty of Gamrie. He's far from unique in believing that we owe a duty to protect our vulnerable and inexperienced young folk. But, following the permanent disablement of his granddaughter and accident in the vicinity of a school bus, he's being a ferocious champion improving safety in our school transport system. I've not been alone in supporting Ron, members of the Public Petitions Committee, o'r fforddiau, o'r fforddiau o'r symelnyddu ni wedi nhw'n psychicibnenio, o'r fforddiau o'r fforddiau o'r hunain a'r fforddiau i'r bwysigau cyfnodau. Ieithiadau nhw'n bwysigio eich hoffi gyda cadw i i ddim yn ystodgiadu ac yn ei gael amferth hyn yn ei chynnod, ac yn unrhyw y ddim yn ystodgiadu i gael a'n hynny. First, nid yw'n bobl питau neu oes yn troiandr �farnfiolau基本 a'r siwr ddau Maes i fod yn ei ffordd o gadw i'r ffordd o gyfliadau gyda'r bwysig, a wnaeth i gael i'r ffordd o'i ac yn edrychwch, yn lleiwch o'i gael ei ffordd o blaenau neu i'r busiau ar gyfer ei wneud. Fodd yn ei wneud o'i gael i'r busiau, os rôl i'r bandwi ac i'r bandwi. Fy先u ddag i gael i'r 1,2 miliwn ffordd o'i ddiwrs o gael i'r ddeuorau agor 1,700 poedd yr ydydd. Rwy'n cynhyrch gyda'r busiau i'r ddisgu y pach ar gyfer hynny, of those use the bus. Youngsters are not naturally born with adequate appreciation of all the risks they will meet in life. Motorised transport in particular presents challenges. Assessing the speed of approaching traffic, deciding whether it's safe to step onto a road, these are not skills we're born with. Buses add a further complication. They're big and likely to obstruct one's view of the road. Education authorities and bus operators working with them to transport school students are acutely aware of the need to protect their passengers, and other road users also have a role to play. This debate and hopefully the commentary around it will help to remind us all of the need to exercise care near school buses, especially when they're stationary. So what can be done to help alert the driver? Good, clear signage that the bus is a school bus, and crucially it's removal when it's not operating as a school bus. Our brains are alerted by changes in the environment. The psychological phenomenon of OMW, what we see all the time, we no longer notice. So buses must look different when they are carrying school students and only then. Flashing lights on the bus to break into drivers' attention. Speed limits which can vary throughout the day and lights to alert drivers to the need for reduced speed. Something we already do outside many schools, the length and breadth of the country. In Aberdeenshire, in Aberdeen and in Murray, we've seen a number of steps taken to improve safety. Transport Scotland, I will say Mr Beattie, is not their greatest fan, has produced guidance for our 32 local authorities on how they can help improve road transport safety. CME technology has been trialled in Aberdeenshire. It causes flashing lights to switch on at bus stops as it detects people who are approaching the stop who are carrying a transponder. After it was established that there was no legal impediment to do so, much larger school bus signage has been used. An Aberdeenshire council has made a condition of bus contracts that the signage comes off when the bus ain't carrying school students. Progress has been made. Lots of good things are done by people of good heart. I will indeed. I'm very grateful to Stuart Steele, both for taking intervention and for bringing this important issue to the chamber. He's right to point to this being an issue across the country. One of the most tenacious campaigners on this issue in my constituency, Councillor Andrew Driever, has been putting forward the suggestion of a ban on overtaking of stationary school bus. I wonder whether that's something that he's been aware of as a campaign strategy and what his views are on the efficacy of that. I wasn't aware specifically of Councillor Andrew Driever's initiative on that, although I've heard it in other places, and it certainly is something worth considering. It's not, of course, within our gift in this Parliament to legislate to do that, but I will return to the subject with another suggestion that might have that effect a little later in my remarks. With a greater focus on school transport safety in the north-east in particular, we've not seen a repeat of the string of very serious injuries that we had a few years ago. Policy and practice changes may have contributed, or the very bad winters that caused down schools, and therefore school transport, and the comparatively mild winters that reduce weather risks may have been a significant factor. Either way, the questions are, is the more we can reasonably do and do we know what to do, and the answer to both really ought to be yes. Perhaps the most important thing that the north-east experience does say to the rest of Scotland is that the costs of addressing the issue are between nil and trivial. It just takes an increased focus on the issue, so we can and must do more, but what should we do? Put requirements into school bus contracts, not necessarily the existing contracts—it always costs a lot to change one that you've got—but certainly new ones, which tend to be in a three-year cycle. Make contractors provide better signage, not behind the school window, but outside the bus window, but outside the bus. Use it responsibly, get the drivers using constant headlights when running, and flashers when stopped. Do risk assessments and introduce 20-mile-mile speed limits where it will help. Look again at school travel plans, work with parents on bus routing, perhaps to arrange for pick-up and drop-off points to be at safer locations, and perhaps in the morning in the evening for individual kids at different places, because the bus may be coming in a different direction. When I spoke in Alex Neil's debate on school bus safety in November 2006, whatever else we can say, it's not really a new issue. I suggest that we could use bus signage that looked as if it were making a legal statement to other road users. A big sign in the back of the bus saying, don't break the law on line 1, and on line 3, don't overtake the school bus, and on line 2, the word please, an incredibly small print, might give the effect of a legal request without the necessity of legislation. Let's try to think of a few tricks that grab attention and make things happen. Let's innovate, but let me close by congratulating Ron Beatty for his tenaciousness in keeping the issue alive, but let's make sure that the actions of our Government and our council mean that we are keeping youngsters alive so that Ron's issue doesn't need to. Thank you, Mr Stevenson. We now move to open debate. Can I ask members to have speeches of no more than four minutes? Maureen Watt, followed by Alex Rowley. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Can I too congratulate Stuart Stevenson in securing this debate and specifically in relation to recognising the tireless work that Ron Beatty has done on school bus safety following the tragic accident involving his granddaughter Erin? Road safety and accidents involving school children has been a particular focus of mine even when I was a councillor in Grampian region and I was proud to have managed to get one particular rat run, which commuters used through my ward, blocked off, which definitely reduced road accidents in that road and adjoining roads. So I was happy when I came here to support Ron Beatty's campaign, particularly when there was a bad accident, a school bus accident on the Netherley road, which lies between my home and my work. When I saw Stuart Stevenson's motion, I thought, that rings a bell. I remember that I had a similar member's debate on 8 February 2007. That debate was more specifically about the provision of seat belts on school buses. Only vehicles first used after 2001 were required to have seat belts fitted. The legislation was still rested with Westminster, and that was the main focus of the debate. In fact, the legislation was in the hands of Douglas Alexander, the then transport minister. Rightly at that time, I got an email from Ron Beatty gently reminding me that there was more to school bus safety than seat belts. I quoted his email. Yes, belts are vital to safety as are improved bus visibility, modern visibility, flashing signage, the removal of the sign when children are not aboard at the time, and you will see bushes on outings with the signs still displayed, which makes a total nonsense of its use. Dedicated school transport, extra flashing lights, more visible than hazard lights, many of us use when popping into the local shop, so please don't just stop at seat belts. It's the cheapest option. That was me told then. Mr Beatty has, of course, kept up his campaign with petitions considered by the petitions committee. I note that progress has been made, albeit slow. That, in no way, has yet met Mr Beatty's ambitions. It would seem that we still await the transfer of this power from Westminster and I look forward to hear what the minister says, but I hope that it will be transferred before the general election. The time that it has taken to do this is not a good portent of the transfer of many much more substantial powers, but much has been done, as Stuart Stevenson has mentioned. He mentioned that Aberdeenshire council has conducted various demonstrations and trials, and on top of the ones mentioned by Mr Steven that it has produced a bus stop education pact, including operators induction training. As has been mentioned, councils have great opportunities in the way that they frame school bus contracts in what they can and can't do and what they require of people. As Mr Stevenson has mentioned, the behaviour of school children and parents should always be at the top of the agenda. I congratulate Mr Stevenson again on that motion. I would also congratulate Stuart Stevenson on securing this debate this evening and acknowledging the role that Ron Beatty has played in keeping this issue high. I know that when parents in Kingsie and Fife had a major issue around school safety in the bus, they were able to go on to websites and look at what was happening in the north-east and get advice and speak to people, and that helped them to achieve the campaign that they run at that particular time. I do have some concerns in terms of the pressures that are on local government at the present time. I know that, as a former council leader, one of the options that was often put to me by council officials was to go to the statutory limits in terms of school buses. I know that some local authorities have done that. I do worry, particularly in these winter months, if we were to do that in Fife, for example, in my home village of Kelty, a lot of the kids there would be expected to walk to Cowham Beath to be thigh school because it would be within the statutory limit. I do worry about the pressures that are on local authority budgets. School transport often seems to be an easy option when officials are looking at ways to save money. I certainly wanted to come along tonight and flag that up. On a more positive note, I know that, in Fife, there is a lot of good work going on within the schools themselves. I was recently approached by a volunteer driver who pointed out to me that some of the minibuses that were being hired in for kids to go on trips, etc. There was no signage in them. I know that I took that with Fife council, and I have been assured that that has been addressed. The role of the police and community safety partnerships is also very important, particularly when you are looking at primary school transport. I would say that we need to continue to highlight the new trend that parents tend to try to get their cars as close to schools as possible. That can create a hazard for kids coming off buses, and it can create a hazard around the school itself. I often joke that some parents think that if they could get the car into the playground, they would actually do so. It is important that Police Scotland community safety partnerships and the schools themselves continue to look at that. We send our kids, our grandkids, out to school in the morning, and we want to know that they are safe. We want to know that they are safe in the schools, but we want to know that they are safe getting to the schools. That is why I commend Stuart Stevenson for bringing this debate here tonight. We need to continue to be vigilant and ensure that the kind of pressures that are on local government right now do not result in any compromise in school transport. I also welcome the opportunity to discuss this motion today. I like others. I congratulate Ron Beattie for his efforts in campaigning on the issue for many years. It often takes an impassioned constituent to raise issues in the petitions committee. It is a mark of the success of this Parliament that it can go from petitions through to the floor of this chamber. I would also like to thank Stuart Stevenson for bringing forward this issue for debate. It was back in October 2005 that petition PE892 was presented to the Parliament by Mr Beattie, calling for the then Scottish Executive to set down minimum safety standards for school bus provision. As Stuart Stevenson spoke, he reminded me of a friend of mine at school who ran out from behind the school bus and was in fact killed at Hillside Primary School, Montrose, many years ago. The petition moved between the petitions committee and the education committee, and there have been two further reports in 2010 and 2013, but we are still in the position today where, as the motion states, more has to be done on school bus safety. The Transport Scotland report in 2010 identified 10 ways to improve school transport safety, some of which have been mentioned by Stuart Stevenson, but those include reducing speeds on school routes and around schools, encouraging motorists to reduce their speeds when passing stationery school buses, setting minimum safety standards in school transport contracts and risk assessing school drop-off and pick-up areas. The Minister for Transport and is forward to that document said, and I quote, "...I believe that this guide will be invaluable for local authorities and operators as a reference point for their responsibilities in terms of school transport and will provide local authorities with the toolkit of measures that they could consider in seeking to implement best practice." Unfortunately, three years on, when Transport Scotland reviewed the success of the document, its conclusions were disappointing. Some council respondents who were spoken to had never even heard of the 2010 study, let alone its recommendations. Some councils said that it was because school transport could lie with education, transportation or engineering departments, and there was often confusion within councils over who should take the lead. It is exacerbated when there is a shared responsibility, which diffuses the responsibility even further. As I said, one of the most critical conclusions was that some local authorities had never even seen the 2010 report. That is not to say that school bus safety is not considered an important issue in those council areas, but surely school bus safety should be the same in Shetland, Shettleston, Elgin and Edinburgh. The 2010 report and Mr Beatie's petition both sought consistency of approach across Scotland. However, when there are recommendations of best practice and advice on how to optimise school transport safety, it is disappointing that so little progress has been made since Ron Beatie began his campaign almost a decade ago. I did look at the transportation policies of each of the councils in the Highlands and Islands region and, to be fair, it is quite difficult to decipher whether they have implemented all or even some of the recommendations of the 2010 report. I hope in summing up that the transport minister can reflect on his comments in the 2010 report, which we welcome, and suggest how the Scottish Government and local councils can work together to further improve safety on our school buses in order, as other speakers have said, to protect school pupils' safety across Scotland. I, too, am grateful to Stuart Stevenson for bringing forward this important issue tonight. I am pleased to record my own gratitude for the tireless work of my constituent, Ron Beatie. Alongside others, touched by similar personal tragedies in my own North East region, he has fought for a decade for safety improvements on school transport. Together, they have determinedly turned traumatic events into a positive, substantive campaign for change. That commitment and contribution of our campaigners must be matched by the relevant authorities, and I hope that the minister will explain how the Scottish Government intends to encourage compliance with the 2010 transport guidance if there is indeed a disparate approach across the country. It is worth highlighting the ground-breaking work of Aberdeenshire Council in this area in proactively developing safety measures. Tragicly, it was two fatalities within two weeks in 2008 that, in part, led to their adoption at 15-year-old Robin Oldham and 12-year-old Alexander Milne, where both knocked down having just got off a school bus. In consultation with the Department for Transport, the council trialled the revised larger school bus signage, and that included the words school bus, the chevrons and utilised the high visibility material. The results were overwhelmingly positive. Only 40 per cent of motorists surveyed could correctly identify the statutory signage, but 80 per cent understood the enhanced model, and indeed all the findings indicated that it was more effective, comprehensible and visible. The council has since rolled it out across all of its services and covered the initial costs of that. The council also has two surveyors whose prime purpose is to monitor contract compliance and safety across the school transport network—that is some 174 schools and 700 contracts—and non-compliance, such as the failure to appropriately display the sign's results and penalties against the contract. Elsewhere, as Maureen Watt has indicated, it has piloted the interactive school bus stop technology and the bus stop education packs. More crucially, it has required the provision of seatbelts and all-home to school transport services since 2010. Building up in a car has been second nature since it became law in 1983, and we know that wearing a seatbelt can dramatically reduce the risk of serious injury or death. I am surprised that, 40 years later, it is not yet compulsory on buses. I welcomed the announcement in March that the UK Government will transfer to us the powers so that we can make it mandatory for buses dedicated to taking children to and from school to provide seatbelts. I would be grateful again if the minister could provide an update on its plans and the reasons why, if the reports are correct, it will not be phased in until 2018. My colleagues at Malcombruse also highlighted further options while seeking to introduce a new road traffic offence to prevent the overtaking of school buses, which my colleague referred to earlier, when children are boarding or alighting. Malcombruse told the Parliament's Petitions Committee in December 2009 of the benefits of standardising seatbelt types, flashing signage and the requirement to remove school bus signs when they are not operating as such. When parents entrust their children to others each morning, whether it is at the school gates or the bus stop, they rightly expect them to be safe and secure. There is a duty of care, and it must not take further accidents to focus minds on better protecting children during the school run. There is much more to be done, but, as everyone else has said tonight, the initiatives would not require under-pressure local authorities to fund significant investment or new infrastructure. Often, it is affordable, practical and primarily cultural changes that are needed, but they are changes that will help to save lives. I am delighted that the Scottish Parliament of the United Nations Association for Banshire and Birkencoast has received cross-party support for this debate today. The debate titled the importance of school bus safety around Scotland. I too, like Mary Scanlan, would like to congratulate Mr Ron Bitty and other colleagues who spoke before me, and particularly I would like, like Mary Scanlan said, saying that the success of the Scottish Parliament, this respetition system, which is a best way of this access to democracy and making sure that all these issues are not left to politicians, but people like Mr Ron Bitty can have really an input and can change legislation. Let's remind ourselves that Mr Bitty first petitioned this Parliament on the matter as early as 2005, and it is imperative that recommendations from Transport Scotland are to be carried out across the country. I share Mr Bitty's frustration on that matter and at the heart of the matter, President Officer, is where the power lies today to change the situation on bus safety standards. The power, like many others, is still reserved to Westminster, like Maureen Watt said, and there is a call today that could be made is for this power to be devolved. We all care about improving school transport safety, but it's where we do it, which is the most important. For example, the EC directive 2003-20 EC says that buses must be fitted with seatbelts, but the directives coming from Europe are only directives, as we know in this matter it's up to Westminster to make them law. Another example we debated this morning at committee was the lack of devolved power to tackle drink driving. Most of us powers are reserved, and President Officer, make it slow and cumbersome for us here to increase road safety. If the Parliament today had the intention to increase penalties for school bus drivers who will be over the drink driving limit, maybe a new limit next month, this Parliament will not be able to do it. I just wonder if the member would agree with me that the campaign now running in Murray, Aberdeen City and Shire on Safe Drive Stay Alive for School Children, which is running this week, helps in this area immensely. Thank you very much Maureen Watt. Maureen Watt will be pleased to know that I designed a motion today which celebrates that event on Monday. If you can talk about that event, you know, not only is it a fantastic event because all the youngsters from different academies and primaries are going to it, but what's important is when I thought about it, when I saw all this film and all this testimony from people from different emergency services, we're trying to and achieving to tell our youngsters how safety is important. I remember when I came into the beach ballroom that there were a line of buses waiting for them to take them back to the academy or to the primary. And I did think, you know, let's make sure that all these buses have got silver and now we are happy that they have. And that safety, it's very, very important that safety is given to the youngsters as early as possible because we need to have that culture of safety. And that culture of safety is not only for us adults and certainly not only for us politicians but for our youngsters as well to understand from the start. And it makes life a lot easier, make them better drivers afterwards, and they might not go and try to pass a school bus stop who will be stopped next to a school. And that's very, very important that we think about that, Presiding Officer, that our youngsters, safety for our youngsters is an important thing. This safety culture has got to be recognised in this debate. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you, and I, too, congratulate Stuart Stevenson on bringing this important debate. Children's road safety matters to us all and road safety in general has particular resonance in the north-east of Scotland. Ron Beatty is an outstanding example of an active citizen affected by a tragic accident to a child on our roads who has worked tirelessly to reduce the risk to other children of suffering in the way his granddaughter has done. And in that he is not alone as we have already heard, but he has put a particular focus on safety around school buses and highlighted the responsibilities of government at every level. This is not, of course, a matter for this Parliament alone as we've heard, nor is it uniquely for Scottish ministers. There are responsibilities at both UK and local government levels. And Mr Beatty has indeed, as I understand it, raised petitions both at this Parliament and with the United Kingdom Department for Transport. And he has, of course, lobbied his local council as well as MPs and MSPs in the north-east region. He has put a particular focus on this place and on those who are accountable to this place, and I read his comments in the present journal this morning that Transport Scotland should stop arguing and making excuses for not doing more and calling on the Scottish Government to use the powers it has to take this issue forward. Members have been right to emphasise that this is not just an issue for the north-east, but there is no doubt that our region has a particular issue of danger on our roads. Aberdeenshire has the highest rate of fatal and serious accidents across Scotland, according to Transport Scotland figures for last year published just last month, with more fatal accidents to people of all ages than any other local council area. And the number of accidents that are specifically involving children on roads across the north-east, that number is also high and the need for action is clear. Local councils in the region are taking these issues seriously. Just yesterday, as we have heard, Aberdeen Community Safety Partnership hosted the 10th Safe Drive Stay Alive event at the beach ballroom in Aberdeen supported by the police and fire and ambulance services by NHS Grampian and by all three councils in Aberdeenshire and Murray. The pupils and guests, as it was described, were gripped by the testimony of survivors and relatives affected by the impact of accidents, and it seems that the consequences of unsafe behaviours on our roads came across loud and clear to all concerned. Those road shows are aimed not just at making young people safer and better pedestrians, but also at making them safer and better drivers when they do get behind the wheel. In the 10 years that Safe Drive Stay Alive has been running, the number of fatal accidents involving young drivers has fallen in the north-east to a significant extent, although there is clearly a good deal more to do. We need an equal emphasis, as we have heard today, on making the school bus run safer for all concerned. Transport Scotland's guidance on improving bus safety is certainly helpful. The question today is whether more can be done to ensure that its recommendations are implemented in full and across the board. I hope that the minister can tell us what Murray can do in partnership with the powers that he has and how he hopes to increase the buy-in of partners across Scotland. Families should not have to worry about whether their child is going to come home safely from school. That is the point of today's debate. Mr Beattie's impatience for further progress deserves a positive response to make his long journey worthwhile. We now move to the wind-up. I call Keith Brown Ministers up to seven minutes. I would like to express my gratitude to Stuart Stevenson for bringing this important matter to Parliament today. Of course, as many think all members have done to Ron Beattie, whose tireless commitment to improving the safety of our young people as he travelled to and from school deserves the utmost praise—in fact, wider recognition than it so far had. I know that there are tragic family circumstances related to his efforts, and I can only imagine the pain that that has caused, but his tenacity in this area over so many years is an example to us all. I know that he also speaks campaigns on behalf of Alexander Milne and Robin Oldham, mentioned earlier, who died after being struck by cars at ages 12 and 15 when they stepped off school buses in 2008 in Aberdeenshire. There is no greater responsibility of course than the protection of our young people, and Scottish ministers remain unwavering in our endeavours to keep them safe. Reducing the risks to children as they travel between home and the classroom plays a key role in our efforts. All parents know the natural apprehension that we face when leaving our children in the care of others. However, as we wave our children off to school in the morning, none of us should have to worry that they will not come home safely at the end of the day. That is why the Scottish Government is taking forward a range of measures to improve safety on dedicated school transport. Thankfully, the risk of children being seriously injured on bus journeys is small, but there is no room for complacency. Ensuring that buses have clear and visible signs that show that they are carrying young people is vital. We have heard reservations from various quarters about the current minimum legal requirement on school bus signs. The Scottish Government, just to be clear, agrees that there is room for improvement here, and yet the powers to legislate in this area rests with Westminster and the UK Government, which has refused our request for the devolution of this competence. That is extremely disappointing to say the least. Despite that, we will not be sidetracked in our efforts and Transport Scotland has taken forward a range of measures to promote best practice in this area, encouraging local authorities to embrace high visibility signage that builds upon those minimum standards. As has been mentioned by members, we have published guidance that not only details the legislative requirements but encourages local authorities to go further. It encourages local authorities to go further. We are often berated in this chamber for insisting on things with local authorities. What we have done in this case is to encourage them to go further. To supplement that best practice guidance, Transport Scotland also ran workshops where further encouragement was given to adopt enhanced signage. Mary Scanlon and Alison McInnes have put a challenge to the Scottish Government to do more, and I accept that. That is perfectly legitimate. I did not hear from either of them any insinuation that they would support the further devolution of those powers to Scotland from the Westminster Parliament. I am happy to give way to them if they want to do so now. That is what gives us additional powers to take further measures. I am not saying that there is not more that we can do. I am happy to discuss it further. In fact, Mr Beattie is here, and I am more than happy to meet Mr Beattie again to discuss that. I do not know my speech in front of me, I have given it to an official report, but I was quoting the foreword from the 2010 report. The devolution settlement is obviously going forward to the Smith commission, but what you said in 2010 and the promises that you made for a consistent approach then stand the same now. The devolution settlement is no different four years later. I think that it is unfortunate that Mary Scanlon has not used her intervention to suggest that she would support the devolution of the powers that I have mentioned, which are crucial to us taking this further. I think that it is unfortunate that if we had the consensus in the Parliament to do that, it would make a stronger case to the UK Government to devolve those powers. The powers that we have undertaken and the guidance that we have issued, along with the further encouragement, are not the final word. We should look to do more and I accept that. However, we will be building on the effective work that has been done in Aberdeenshire, where there has been a successful pilot that has led to the local authority-wide roll-out of enhanced signage. Despite the UK Government's reluctance to drive forward changes in this area, we are working with local authorities to promote innovative approaches. I think that that is the right approach to take. It is envisaged, for example, that the Glasgow pilot will provide a robust analysis that will help us to further explore how best to promote and support the implementation of enhanced school bus signs more widely across Scotland. However, in addition to signage, we are also driving forward improvements more widely. I will be aware that I have announced their intention to bring forward legislation in the next Scottish Parliament to ensure that seatbelts are fitted to all dedicated school transport vehicles in Scotland. Someone raised the question of—it might be an Alasly McInnes of it—why 2018. We made it clear at that time because of the point that Stuart Stevenson made, that to vary contracts that are currently in place can be extremely expensive for local authorities. By giving them that time, which is the same thing that was done in Wales, in fact, in agreement between local authorities and the Welsh Assembly, you can actually affect those changes when the new contracts come up front. They should not all have to wait until 2018, but that should be the backstop period that we have mentioned. That is why we have taken that approach. In the world where commercial operations are under ever greater scrutiny, does he agree that events such as this debate and elsewhere can often lead companies to act ahead of legislation, and we should not underrate the ability of that to happen? Indeed. The other point would be that local authorities have substantial discretion at the current time to insist on those higher standards, but, as Alex Rowley said, there are sometimes resource implications for that. I faced the same challenges when I councillored on myself to reduce the school bus service to the statutory minimum and always refused that, but there is that question of resources for local authorities. That important measure in relation to signage will ensure the safety of school children on home to school transport. We have also set up a working group of partners, which is actively taking forward discussions to ensure that all those involved are ready for the changes coming into effect. We are aware that there can be issues with bus operators failing to remove school signs when they are undertaking other journeys without children on board, and that is disappointing. The guidance is clear that local authorities should make this a condition of contracts with operators. We will continue to work with partners to consider what further action we can take. I repeat my offer to meet again with Mr Vity, who I have met on a number of occasions when he has come to the Parliament's committees, and I acknowledge the work that he has done. If he is aware of further suggestions that we can take forward with the powers that we have, I am more than happy to listen to that, or indeed for many of the members who have spoken. It is vital that we promote safety for all of our pupils going to and from school, and that is why we are working to reduce traffic speeds on school routes and around schools. The very balanced contribution from Lewis MacDonald acknowledged the fact that different levels of democracy hold different powers in this area, and we have to try to work together for the common good. We are working to reduce those traffic speeds to promote risk-assessed school transport, pick-up and drop-off points, encourage the regular review of school travel plans and promote educational materials that foster road safety behaviours, which can last a lifetime. It is through that comprehensive approach that we can continue to reduce the risks to young people using the roads on the way to school, a goal that all of us in the chamber and beyond strive towards. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Minister. That ends Stewart Stevenson's member's debate on the importance of bus school bus safety around Scotland. I now close this meeting.