We are recording. Thank you very much, Athena. So seeing that it is 10.30 and I have a presence of a quorum, I'm calling this meeting of Chio-El to order at just June 30, 2021. And we are being recorded. We're soon to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021. This meeting will be conducted by remote means. Members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so via Zoom or by telephone and the instructions I can read out if needed. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but every effort we made to ensure that the public can adequately access proceedings in real time via technological means. We have no visitors today. We just have the five members of my committee. So I'm just going to make sure that everyone can be heard. And the lovely Emily Reardon. Yes, Emily is here, that is correct. And Athena. Athena is also here. I think that's also true. And I think Pat, I'll start with you. Can you be heard? No. That's what I thought. Okay, Mandy. I'm present. Thank you very much, Darcy. Here. And Sarah. Present. Thank you. So all the members of present, I could be heard. And so I'm going to put the agenda up on the screen. It's actually not all that complicated, but I'm going to make a couple of changes because that's just what happens. So here we go. And let me find my share screen. And there it is. And there it is. So we're going to begin this morning with the continued review of the current citation. And then I'm going to turn to an item unanticipated. Despite my best efforts, I have two, one citation that we need to review and one resolution. So that resolution will come second under the 48 hour rule. And then we will turn to the OCAP process. OK, so let's stop sharing that. Any questions about the agenda? All right, I'm going to put up the citation. And share it with you. So let's do that. So this is now, I believe, the fourth version of the citation, including the one that we've read. This is a change version from the one that was voted on at the last year. Well, meeting of a vote, I believe was three to one. So it has been changed and revised somewhat. Everyone has had access to this in a packet. And I have made one just for the sponsors to be aware of. When I went through it, I did in this, the very first now, therefore, I returned to the original title to mention Officer Curley's full name and put her maiden name next to it. So if they're not happy with that, I can take it out. But that is the only change I made from what this was. And so I think my feeling is this is a much better document. After all the reviews and changes we've gone through, I think it's a much better document. I think that it addresses many of the concerns that have been expressed by both members of the public and by members of this committee. We have worked very hard to remove any kind of identifying description and take out any kind of judgmental or language that is other than matter of fact. And we have made the date much less clear. But I think we also felt, though the other two sponsors could speak for themselves, that the narrative is essential in the sense that anyone reading this needs to understand why Officer Curley was given this particular award. So I don't know if the sponsors. So I see Mandy's hand up. So I'll start with Mandy. I was just going to make the motion to declare it clear, consistent, and actionable. OK. We have a motion. Is there a second? Second to Angela's. All right. We have a motion to second it. Discussion. Darcy. Yeah. I know I contacted Lynn after our last meeting. Yeah, we heard about that, Darcy. Yeah, we did. Pardon? We heard about that, yes. Right. Well, this is why I'm just letting people know that I contacted her because I realized that the complaint that had been made about the details showing up in this had gone to the town manager. And I had received a copy of the town manager's report. But for some reason, I thought it had gone to the whole council. So I just thought that this group should be aware of that and the fact that the town manager actually removed the entire narrative from the May 17 town manager report. So it just has a paragraph noting that the citation was made, but the attachment that was at the end of the report was edited out because of those concerns. And I believe that was the source of the details that went into this citation. So in any event, I am still very uncomfortable with just giving the details of the narrative. And I feel like this group, including myself, are not really professionals as far as knowing what is responsible reporting of mental health incidents, suicide attempts, suicide. I wouldn't, I Googled it. The word suicide is not used in this document. Right. But that is what it was. I have no idea what it was. And I think that was an excellent point. And the removal of it, I thought, was an excellent step. Could I finish? I feel like we should weigh in with the Disability Access Committee and the Police Department as to what they normally report about these things that's going to get major publishing. Because I'm sure that they have guidelines. And we didn't look into any particular guidelines when we put this together that I know of. Even though I completely see that the intent of this is really good. And I totally commend this officer. I just think we aren't, this committee is not necessarily expert on how to responsibly report these types of things. So is this a matter of clarity? Consistency or actual ability? Which of the three are you concerned about here? Or are you talking about substance? Because you're talking about substance, it's a matter right now we're concerned with clarity, consistency, and action. Is this not clear? Is it not consistent? Or is it not actionable? What's the issue? That's a good question, because it is content. It is content. Then maybe that's something you need to raise at the council. Because here, we're not discussing content. We're trying to simply find out if it's clear and consistent action. I think that the sponsors are here, though. So they can do what they want. And I totally respect the sponsors. And I did, it occurred to me after that. I don't think that it was possible for me to actually talk to the sponsors, because they're both on the committee. And wouldn't that be violating the open meeting law? I'm sorry, I don't know what you're talking about now. You're talking about talking to the sponsors about the content of their documentary, talking about simply telling the sponsors out as a matter of courtesy, that you were going to the council president to ask you to remove from the agenda an item that we had already voted and sent to the council president. So which is it? Is it that you wanted to talk about the content of this document, or you wanted, as a courtesy, simply to reach out to them and tell them that even though we had voted this and sent it to the council president and it was on the agenda, you were going to go and ask to take it off the agenda. So what was it you wanted to talk to them about? I agree that it would have been better to talk to the sponsors, but I am confused about the open meeting law. So that's beside the point, but I do think that we are not experts on this issue. So that is all I have to say about it at this time. Thank you for clarifying, George, that this committee does not deal with substance, particularly because the council has asked us not to deal with substance. And I believe most of that has been a lot of the times that request has come from you, Darcy. So the fact that you keep bringing up substance on this is very frustrating because the motion is to declare it clear, consistent, and actionable. And I haven't heard any objections to either clarity, consistency, or actionability. And so you're more than welcome to object to the substance, but you're not a sponsor. And so the objection comes at the council with a potential vote against it at the council. That's fine. But this committee is clarity, consistency, and actionability only, and I would really appreciate it if Darcy, you could stick to that. I also feel like I'm not an expert in forest management or wildlife preservation. I'm not an expert in a lot of things that I vote on. And I work hard to get a sense of the depth of content. I work hard to listen to people's responses, whether I agree with them or not, and take what I can and therefore often change. So the expert argument is kind of silly and a waste of our time. As far as our outreach, I have spoken on two occasions to Chief Livingston. He is well aware of this document. He's actually looked at it. He was actually very moved by the fact that the council was considering doing something like this. And the details of this, which we've now gone over many times, with I think a very legitimate concern about the graphic detail and the potential for upsetting someone. We have gone through this very carefully to try and remove anything that we would consider to be a language that might be upsetting. We're not experts, I agree, but we're not pretending to be. But the Chief shared with me the actual document that was sent to the Department of Mental Health, the narrative that was created by an officer in his department, forwarding it to the Department of Mental Health, asking that officer Curley, when that time was actually Officer Contrero, be recognized for this particular action. So it wasn't submitted as an officer Curley's been with us for many years, and she's really strong CIT. And we think she does a great job. It was submitted for this specific incident. And the details that were in Paul's report and the details that are in this citation are based on that document, not based on Paul's report. So I mean, I absolutely, I think I've come to appreciate much more so now the concerns that have been raised. And I think they are legitimate concerns. And it's something that we have taken very seriously. And we've done everything that we think we can do to both respond to those legitimate concerns, but also to recognize what was an extraordinary, I think, act of professionalism and courage in a very difficult situation. And we want to recognize that and honor that. So I think the narrative is important. And to take it out would basically make this pretty much pointless, other than just saying, congratulations, Officer Curley, for getting this nice award. And the public will have no idea why actually she did get it. So this is now the fourth version. But again, I'm certainly willing to hear other thoughts on this. So anyone else that has anything they like to add. All right. Seeing that there is no further comment, I'd like to go to a vote. So it's been made and seconded. The motion is made and seconded to declare. Citation and recognition of Officer Rita Curley and Nate Contardo upon receiving the Law Enforcement Exemplary Performance Award from the Massachusetts Department of Mental Health to be clear, consistent, and actionable. And so I'm going to begin. I'm sorry, I have a hand raised, Pat. Yeah, I just want to say it's clear we need to get round four. But there are a couple of spacing issues that need to be. Still in the document. OK. Round four comes out. And you think there's some spacing issues? OK. Yes. There's an extra space there and an extra space here. I changed it on the document that I had. OK. Three places, I think. Three places. Three places that are blue underlined, George. Yeah. So they can be fixed easily. I'm sorry. Three places. They should be fixed. See the blue underlines? It's those three places. OK. All right. I'm moving my mouse, but you can't see that. Sorry. That's all right. I keep scrolling. I apologize. But yes, I see those places. And are the sponsors, the other two sponsors, OK? With the fact that I introduced her maiden name of second time just for clarity. So at the end, so now, therefore, we, the Amherstown Council, be heard by recognized. Are they OK with that? Yeah. Or do you want to go back? OK. Yeah. Good. All right. So, motion is before us. I'm going to try to do this in alphabetical order. Pat, you are first. Aye. OK. Mandy. Aye. I can't do alphabetical order on my head. Darcy, I'm sorry. You're out of order. Darcy. Abstain. Sarah. Aye. And the chair is an aye. So the vote is for and favor, none against, and one abstention. The second document that we have in front of us is a resolution that has been brought forward by three sponsors, all three of whom, in fact, are members of this committee. In spite of my desperate plea not to do this, they went ahead and did it anyway. But there is a time sensitivity to this, I understand. And so I'm going to put this up on the screen. And can everyone see it? Well, if I do that, you can. So this, I'm sorry. We can see it. Thank you. This is a sponsors by Pat and Darcy and Mandy. And I've looked at it. I don't know if anyone else has had a chance to look at it. Obviously three of these sponsors have looked at it. So Sarah, I guess it's just you and me that are seeing this for the first time. I had one thought to the sponsors that came to me right away. I would suggest that I think the language is fine. I had no problem. I didn't see anything in terms of language or any sort of subscription or changes. But I would suggest making it two separate resolutions. It's a little odd to me that some of the whereas is applied to one conclusion and some of the whereas applied to another conclusion. And I would suggest that just break it into two and present them both separately to the council would be my suggestion. When I thought about it, I thought, you imagine a resolution which has like five or six different things. And maybe this is the way it's done. So I'm happy to be instructed here that in fact, constantly, legislatures do multiple resolutions with multiple whereas is applying to different their force. But that was my only suggestion would be to break it into two. So Mandy. Yeah, I'll take that one since I'm the one that drafted this and in some sense, it would be hard because a lot of the whereas would be repeated in both. There'd be only about one that might not be. The S 868 allows a town to add a fee to real estate transactions and those fees that are collected would go to support affordable housing. In fact, the way it's written, they would go into them since we have a municipal housing trust, they would go into the housing trusts held by the housing trust. S 1853 does two things, one of which is support affordable housing, but then it also adds a climate action thing on top of it. And both basically housing affordable housing initiatives, which is why I combined them, even though the other one happens to also have this climate change portion to it. So I think it's strange, but I think it's more efficient to do it this way. OK. OK, good. What we're saying is that basically the common element is housing and that's why they're together. It's not just two, so it's not, again, the carelessness in my part, but one is not just a climate action bill. It's actually a housing bill with a climate action element attached to it. So it's really affordable housing. Thank you, that you're absolutely right. OK. I don't know, Sarah, I didn't have any other things about the language. I thought it was fine. I don't see your hand up. I don't see anyone's hand up, so I'm prepared to entertain a motion to declare the resolution in support of S 868, an act empowering cities and towns to impose a fee on certain real estate transactions to support affordable housing, comma, and S 1853, an act providing for climate change, adaptation, infrastructure, and affordable housing investments in the commonwealth. A second. And the second is Darcy, thank you. Oh, sorry, I should have had Mandy, Joe, sorry. That's quite all right. Now, Darcy's second. I see no further discussion. Anyone? Then I'm going to move immediately to vote this time. I will try to do it in alphabetical order. Pat. Hi. Hi, Darcy. Yes. Mandy. Hi. The chairs and I and Sarah. Hi. It's unanimous 5-0. We also, now the custom is in the council for the sponsor or sponsors to introduce this briefly and to read not the entire document, but maybe provide a brief summary of the, as Mandy just did, and then read one of the therefores. I leave it up to the sponsors to sort out, but it would be a courtesy to reach out to Lynn and let her know who is going to do it. So I just put that out there. For the preceding one, the citation. Again, I think the three sponsors need to just touch base with each other and agree as to who. For instance, in the case of the citation, since there are three, therefore, perhaps each one of us could read one. I think that would be nice. But anyway, that's something for the sponsors of both these documents to try and settle and then reach out to Lynn to let her know. I think it helps her if she knows who's going to do what. OK. All right, the main event. We've all been waiting for and put this up on the screen. I don't know why the counter to that thing. That thing, share screen. All right, I'm going to turn the review. I'm going to get this so we can do tracking. It's on. Good. We go up to the top for a moment and try to put this into context. It's been a while since we've looked at it and for obviously many reasons. And you can all help me as to where we should start back in. You make it a tiny bit smaller so I can see the comments. I wanted it out. OK, let me see if I can. Oh, I was talking about for a second aspect. It's not critical. Can you see the comments? Can you see the comments? Yeah, that's better. Is it OK for everybody else? OK, let me just. Let me just. There we go. How's that? Pick up if it's a problem. Time for me. Is it work for everyone else? Time for me. All right. My hope is and I'm sure that's the hope of all of you is that we can get through this today with a consensus and that I could then bring it to the council. I think it's on July 12th. It's the next council meeting with a proposal with proposed policy. So that's the hope. When we dealt with this last time, I said we would come back to what I call the preamble and go through it one last time once we have done the rest of the document. We had a discussion about it and there's a question about policy procedures process, right? There's a whole bunch of different words here. And so I think once we're done with this, we can go back and just go through the preamble. And I think we can get it clear. I don't want to start with that today. OK, we then did vacancy. And again, it's helpful for me. I'll be taking some notes here. But in my report, Darcy, I remember that you had a concern about impending vacancy. I don't know if you still have that. And there may have been other concerns. But and so please speak up. And I cannot see your faces right now because of the nature of the screen. So I'm going to ask people just to speak up and asked to be recognized or just speak up because I can't see you to recognize you. If someone else can see, please say somebody has their hand raised. But I think people can just speak up here. So go ahead. Could you just explain? Is this a document that I have directly commented on? I'm not sure if this is the right one that we dealt with last time. It OK. That's a problem. I guess I'm not seeing changes. I thought we had talked about and accepted. Well, then let's start with vacancy. And it may be that there is a version of this that somehow is buried in my multiple files that I've lost track of. That's certainly very possible. I thought I looked very carefully and went through this in advance to highlight certain places that I thought there were still areas for discussion, for instance, in community activity form. I don't remember. OK. So I apologize. I'm sorry. Mandy, Joe's got her hand up. Please, Mandy, go ahead. That was my comment was I don't think we're working from the document that we dealt with last time and agreed to a number of.  We did. But I don't know that I don't recall any specific changes. Well, I guess my comment is I have a document pulled up that is almost titled the same as yours, but doesn't show any of the changes you had had in that document. That's why I'm confused. So Mandy, do you have a document in front of you that has changes in it that you feel we made? Or you have a document that I have a document with my own comments from the last time the last time this was in a packet. And this isn't showing the same changes that were there. And then, obviously, my comments aren't in that, but it's not showing the same changes that were there. Well, that's for a moment. I may put yours up on the screen, because if we agree that that is a more recent document, then we'll work from that. I'm not convinced of that yet, but it's very. I'm not sure. That's right. So if you're looking at your document, what you have in front of you and everyone else is looking at the one on the screen. The first, my first comment was that we went through the preamble and we talked about it, but we didn't make any changes to it because we felt we had to come back after we've gone through the rest of the document to decide whether we just want to call this a policy and how we want to, because it clearly are some procedural elements in this, some fairly detailed things. So it does seem to be more than just a policy. It's also a set of procedures. But I felt the issue was really more simple wording that we'll just go back and clarify that first paragraph. And we also struck, so I did not take it out. So I have not removed it yet. We struck the second paragraph because we felt that this should document as my comments say in the margin, this should be something that can be useful going forward, even if names of committees change, which they could. So I felt the reference, for instance, so that's lined out, but it could be put back in. I felt it should be removed. And the final sentence, the following policy, if that's what we finally agree upon, shall apply to all appointments to multiple member bodies made by the town council. Again, we have to come back to that. I'm not saying we won't keep it, but for instance, we didn't follow, I mean, if we had this policy in place, what we did for the DAB actually doesn't follow it. So maybe that's not a big deal, but so that was my understanding of the preamble, okay? And if anyone has a different understanding or if they have different wording, if they have, yeah, go ahead, Mandy. I just have two minor changes to the third line. Okay, so tell us what they are You have a parenthetical of charter section 2.9 C and then there's a random E, E has no bearing, so it should just be deleted. Thank you. And then an extra pair, a closed parenthetical after the B so that after the B, there's a double parenthetical. All right, thank you. And then one note I had that I made was the next sentence that hearing is the policy, which is to govern such appointments, but it doesn't really govern the appointments, it governs how recommendations are made for the appointments. I think I would agree with that. You would agree, yeah. Would disagree. Oh, I'm sorry, I take that.  If it is governing recommendations, then it's also governing appointments. The council can not take the recommendations, it can refuse them. I mean, they're two separate votes. Well, we're creating a town-wide policy for all committees, which means appointments, right? So why would it not be for the whole town council if we're making a town-wide policy? Well, I guess my think there's a difference between getting to a recommendation and getting to a vote. And this policy is how you get to the recommendation because if you look at the very end of the policy, there's nothing about the council actually voting. It's all, how does the committee make a recommendation? So it governs how that recommendation is gotten to, not how the council votes on, ultimately votes on that recommendation. If it's supposed to govern how the council votes on the recommendation, then we need more sections, I guess, on things like how quickly they're brought on an agenda and all sorts of things like that. And this policy doesn't talk about at all the actual council meeting where appointments are voted on. It talks about, it's all about committees, which is the recommendations, not the actual appointment. I think, I don't know. I guess I feel like somehow... Well, I think, yeah, this is why I suggest that we come back to this after we're done and we've gone through it in all detail. We come back to the preamble and address Darcy's concern and Mandy's comment. I think at this point, I'm not sure where I stand. So I think, I'd like to hold off on that. We're not gonna make any decisions. Obviously, we're not gonna make a decision on this preamble right now. Right now, I guess I'm looking for any kind of scrivener changes or any kinds of actual changes that you feel we made that I have lost. I don't think there are any other than the typos here. Not in the preamble. Right. And Darcy, I hear your concern and I'm not, we'll come back to it when we... Hopefully this morning, we will come back to it. Yeah, I'm just going to say that I think this document is, you and I met on this, George, before we started, remember? So I think this is the document that resulted from that initial meeting. There's something later that somehow should be up here rather than this. I think that we, yeah, because this document just has your and my comments on it. Not Mandy's or anyone else's. Not anybody else's. So I'm guessing that Mandy Jo is right that we have some other document. But anyway, yeah. No, she didn't make that much difference. Well, as long as Mandy has her document in front of her with her comment, I'm hoping that we can still work with this. And I apologize if I have gotten this, a slightly older version that has eliminated Mandy's edits. George. Yes, Pat. Could we get Mandy's up instead of this one? That's an option. I mean, Mandy, when you're looking at what you have... No, all my edits were accepted. I just, I'm looking at the document on the screen and the document I made edits to and some of George's edits aren't on the screen but are in the document. That's my concern is not that mine aren't there because mine shouldn't be there. That's what we discuss in committee, but comments George had made and edits George had made aren't on the document we're staring at on the screen but were in a document that was in a previous packet that I made edits to my own comments too. Right. All right. All right. Let me just bear for me with a sec for a second. And I'm not sure why George because other than the addition of MGA's comments to my saved document, the titles are the same. So I'm not quite understanding why they don't agree. Well, I think I may have lost track of yours. And... I just have to walk away for a second as you're finding all of this and I'm sorry. That's all right. I mean, I'm willing to put mine up but I also think mine, I doubt I was the one tracking looking at my thing, tracking the changes we actually made on June 2nd, the most recent time I saw this. June 2nd. In a packet. All right. Hang on for a moment. Just for a moment. Bear with me. And so maybe there's something saved in a June 2nd file for you first. I will take a look June 2nd. Maybe the May 19th meeting. I'm working through it. As we all know, we've been focused on DAB. We've focused on FINCOM, other possible place. It's not coming up. It's maybe here, but buried somewhere. It's not in the files for the previous three meetings. Let me take one quick look. I think it's also not May 19th. Let me take a quick look at May 19th again. So the June 2nd packet had the one with my comments on it as the only document in that packet it looks like. But... You want to put that up on the screen if you want to take a look at it? I can. Okay. And I will, for the moment, stop share. I'll see what you have and we'll see what I have. I'm just going to move to vacancy. For example, the one you had up didn't have your, your comments, George, I think were in blue or maybe in red, I'm trying to figure it out. But we've got May 19th. Oh, here, May 19th at 11.36, the red was added or there doesn't need after consulting with the committee. So these are changes we did actually make. So I think these are potentially showing. Yes, yes, yes, yes. I have no idea where that is in my computer. Made on May 19th, which might be the last time. All right, so let's, let's work with this document. And again, my apologies to my colleagues, but let's work with this document and see if, and Mandy, you have track changes obviously set on. So we can make changes to this. Mandy, if you would scroll up to the top, let's just start again and make sure that we're on the same page, the same title. And actually we did make a change as Mandy has mentioned already. Actually, so how did she- On May 19th, during the meeting. So let's read that and see if you can just get my- I can do a view that reads it clear. Thank you. So that's the preamble and the vacancy. And if you could enlarge it just a bit, just a bit if you could, that's great. Thank you. How the rest of you can read that? Is that okay? That's even better. Everybody okay with that? Okay. Now it doesn't however show, it doesn't show the changes that- Well, this is the simple markup for ease of reading, but I can show all the changes. I think we need to see the changes. I think that's gonna be crucial because that's been the issue all along. There were changes made and I'm not showing them to you. This does. So, and this may be- When I hover, you can see that these were made. May 19th. May 19th. Thank you. Third meeting. All right. So I think we have the right document now. And if we go back to the preamble, a change was made in this, perhaps does address the question that both Darcy and Mandy were discussing about the scope of this document. That change seems to have been addressing that question. And I'm not saying people agree with it, but that's I think the reason that the change was made. I'm sure everyone else is doing what I'm doing, which is trying to remember something that happened almost a month ago. Seems like longer than that. So here it is laid out the policy to govern. So this is change. Thank you. To govern how recommendations are made for such appointments. So we'll come back to this Darcy, but this in fact was something that we did discuss and at the time you may have changed your mind. We're all trying to remember what we were thinking back then, but at the time it seems like we were in agreement about that, but we'll come back to it. And this also shows that the second paragraph was to be removed, but it has not been removed yet. And no other changes were made. So we can go to vacancy. And again, this is all ancient history, but for the sake of just reminding ourselves and me. When a vacancy or impending vacancy occurs in a multiple member body appointed by the town council, the chair of the council committee, chair of the council committee responsible for recommending appointments to the council for that body or their designee after consulting with the committee, shall submit to the town clerk, excuse me, submit to the clerk of the town council for publication on a town bulletin board. I think the rest of this is straightforward. And then we have the definition Darcy that I think you might have had some concern about and may still do about impending vacancy versus vacancy and impending vacancy occurs when a member informs the council of their intention to resign or a member's term is expiring regardless of whether that member seeks reappointment. So we distinguish between a vacancy, which is in the previous sentence, an impending vacancy. Moving on. Yes, unless again, please speak up again. I can't see, actually I should be able to see now. So let me stop pretending I can't see. I can see hands.  Community activity form. It's been noted and will be noted in the report that some members object to the fact that we do not make these public. And that will be noted. I thought, and please help me here if I'm mistaken that a suggestion was made that I think is a good idea. And I don't know the rest of you think that instead of allowing people who already have a CAF CAF on file, not to submit a new CAF that we actually considered changing the policy and requiring everyone who wishes to be considered for a position where the, and even if they're thinking they're seeking a reappointment that we require everyone to file a CAF. It only takes a few minutes and alerts the counselors. I think this was Darcy's point that often people just aren't aware and it's understandable. And this would, no one would have an excuse. Everyone would know it would be in their mailbox that X, Y, and Z have expressed interest in serving on a body that we appoint as opposed to the current policy or is it a procedure where if you are currently a member of one of these bodies, you don't have to submit a CAF. You just use the old one. I think that's a good suggestion. The current is no one has to if it's three years, if it's less than three years old. And I think that was the discussion we were having was does that get too complicated, messy, do all the counselors even know who has applied because three years goes back a couple of counts? No. And it would seem that would be solved by simply saying, look, say in the case of Bob Higner, Bob, if you want to be reappointed, great, just fill out another CAF. Bob says, but I just filled one out two years ago. And I say, Bob, I know, but please fill out another CAF. I mean, I like the idea of speaking as a chair who's had to navigate two of these with massive amounts of appointees or CAF, current CAFs with the three-year term. I really like the idea of limiting it less than three years. I don't know whether it should be going back a couple of months, going back to whenever the bulletin board notice for the vacancy or impending vacancy is published. I'm not sure what the line should be, but I definitely like a line less than three years old. And why less than three? So for example, the ZBA and planning board lists are getting quite long. Right, right. And as a chair, I have to reach out to every single one of those, including the ones that were three years ago. And I have to do that every time. Even if four months ago, they said, I moved out of town. Even if five months ago, they said, I'm not interested. And then this one comes up here, I have to re-reach out to them. And that is a lot of work for a chair, a lot. Whereas if we limit it, number one, you limit the number of people you're reaching out to, sort of the back. If you limit it to once a bulletin board notice is posted, you don't have to reach out except to say, hey, we got it. Great, you'll be hearing from us as we move forward. Versus the continuing to, and if I don't hear back from a person from three years ago, I have to keep sending them every single document, every single communication. Even though they're probably never going to respond or be interested, and that adds a lot of time and work. And so number one, it doesn't seem to be fruitful. And number two, if we're trying to limit the workload of counselors, this is one way to do so that doesn't necessarily limit the pool. It does seem to me that if we were to get rid of the three-year thing, because it does sound a bit overwhelming, I do think somehow or other, there's got to be more than the bulletin board notice. You know, or so I could see, I don't know. I guess I'm not having done this as a chair and I don't, but it does seem to me that I don't understand why you have to contact somebody who's moved out of town and you know it and they told you. Because the rule says anyone submitted within the past three years needs to be contacted. And we do that because sometimes people change their opinion from one to another or maybe they move back in town because that CAF is still technically an applicant till they don't submit the SOI. I mean, one could take the view that, let's say you keep the three-year rule, but and you send out a notice and there's no response. And now you're moving on to the next phase. At that point, it seems not unreasonable for you simply to cease to reach out to people who have not, I mean, first of all, they have to submit a new cap.  You've previously expressed an interest in this body. There is now a bulletin board notice. And if you're interested, please submit a CAF. And so that you could have a boilerplate message and you just, it is a bit of a pain. I know, especially for you because you're dealing with ZBA and planning which tends to have larger pools. The FinCom does not, but it would be a boilerplate message and you'd send it out, you know, as a blast to everybody within a certain time span. Right now it's three years, it could be shorter. And you would not, and if they don't respond with a CAF, you just ignore them. Cause everybody now has to submit a new CAF. So you use the old CAFs as a way to just sort of do outreach. I mean, that's sort of my understanding is that you already have a group of people that expressed an interest in this body once upon a time. And for whatever reason they weren't selected or whatever. And so they're like a natural pool for potentially for, you know, finding new members that's just given to you. And all you have to do is send them all a blast which says, you know, hey, this thing you're interested in, we're looking for somebody. If you're interested again, submit a CAF. So can I ask, I wanna try and clarify what you're saying. Yeah. You're saying CAFs are kept on file for three years and any time of vacancy or an impending vacancy opens up. Anyone that has filed a CAF within the last three years will be contacted to and requested to submit a CAF specific to that vacancy or impending vacancy. And then only CAFs submitted after the bulletin board notice went up are those that are considered current applicants. That is correct. That's what I'm suggesting. Like that would require a complete rewrite of this number two, but I'm okay with that rewrite. And I think I'm okay with that plan personally. No, what do others think?  But in the future, any one of you could be a chair and any thoughts about on the one hand, using CAFs as a way of, that's the idea I think of the three year rule is to keep the net as wide as possible, especially with people who have already expressed an interest in a body. But requiring that they submit a new CAF if they're interested as a way of A, alerting all counselors as to what the pool is or at least with potential pool is and also a way of lessening the burden on the chair who otherwise would have to go the full nine yards for people who almost all of them have absolutely no interest. So that's kind of the logic here. What do people think about that? Other than Mandy and myself, Sarah, please. So that's how we did it in the very beginning because when we made our very first recommendations we did make everyone fill out a new CAF. So I don't have any issue with that. I think the only thing that came up with Oka when we first started doing it was we wanted to make sure that everyone was contacted. We did it, I kept a log, we did it two ways which I know has been different for every single chair but say if we wanna keep it to three years or I would even be okay since councils are gonna start changing every two years if we wanted to go to two years, I would be fine with that. The only thing I would wanna make sure was that whoever was a chair just kept a record that if people needed to see it, they could where you email someone and then I would email them and then I would call them and I would just usually do it twice which now if you have 20 people, that's a total pain in the neck. But now with practical experience, I'm realizing that I don't know that that will ever happen. I think the only hang up is that people sometimes will say, well, they only called me once or I got an email and it was to the wrong place or I was in Ireland and I didn't get it and there was some ranker there. But I think I would even be okay with lowering it to two years, just we have to keep a record of how we got a hold of people so that if that's the only hang up. So can I give you some idea? Go ahead. 20 is less than double what I was emailing people for the planning board. Yeah, so that's why I did not call and I only emailed once and then if they didn't respond, I continued to contact them. So I had a very large contact list every time. So I'm just wondering if then, if it's changed though to, if we lowered it to two years. And then, and I'll be honest, if people told me they moved out of town or if I found out they moved out of town, I did not get a hold of them again. So maybe we can make that rule as well. So I mean, I'm just saying that that might keep the pool large but not make it unmanageable. So that's up to everybody else what they think. And Mindy Jo, you probably have the most experience right now with that. I liked the idea of two years. I think that, especially given our terms, I think that makes sense. Now again, there may be some, maybe a list or others who, you know, thinking of the time manager handbook and the way things have always been done since time immemorial might still insist on three. But I like to, and keeping track of, I mean, I guess for me, if somebody said, you know, what's your record of who you reached out to, I do it strictly by email. At least the last one was done strictly by email. And so there's an email record of everything. So I just, I could find their name and I could tell you exactly when and what was done. And that will stay, you know, forever. And I try to keep, and I keep all the caps in a file. Of course, that's gonna get in a wheelie over time because of making them submit a new cap every single time. That may be a bit of a headache, but yeah. So if we change everything to two years, the question then becomes what are the rules for if someone doesn't respond to that initial email that says, hey, we've got a vacancy coming. You submitted a cap in the next two years. Contact me if you're interested to confirm continued interest. Now I would say, Manny, that what it would say is, if you are still interested, please submit a new cap. So the idea is the new cap, A triggers alerts everyone on the council that somebody's interested in that position. And B tells you that they're an active candidate, but if they don't submit a cap within the timeframe that we've set, then you can just drop them because they're not interested and they're not in the pool. So my thought is that requiring a new cap would be evidence of their continued interest and also alerting counselors who pay attention to these things who currently is interested in say planning borders on it. So we would need to delete the sentence then. Let's see, if an individual, including a current member of the body submitted a cap within the past two years, they do not need to submit a cap. Yes, I'm suggest, let's just strike it for the moment, but I'm suggesting removing that and actually the next sentence as well. So individuals interested in serving on a multiple member body appointed by the town council shall submit a cap to express their interest in service. So it could be all individuals interested in serving on them, right? Including those currently serving, including the current members. So all individuals interested in serving on a multiple member body appointed by the town council shall submit a cap to express their interest in service. That's what I'm suggesting for the moment. Please people weigh in with any thoughts. Can I just, oh. Yeah, no, I was just gonna say, can I take a minute to try and word everything before we try to do this there and come up with something, but I need to know what I'd be trying to write and then I can try and modify the whole thing and then we can go over that. But Sarah? I just was thinking, and I don't know when we talk about policy versus procedure, but do you, should we make it clear for a chair so chairs don't have to guess to say that the chair would reach out to whatever people from the last two years and you wanna just put by email? And I don't know if you wanna just, I don't know if, yeah, I guess you can't really ask people to say, yeah, they got it. So just to make it clear that they just need to reach out by email. Right, we need something that, no.  So I don't know if you wanna just kind of leave it as a record or a guideline for, maybe people 20 years, I don't know. We probably won't even have email in 20 years. Up to you guys. Or the designee. Yeah. I know it's okay, because I think in reality that will never, ever happen, but it could. I dream of it sometimes. Just saying, Pat, you have DAB. So it would be the past two years, I think within the past two years, within two years prior to, okay. Maybe I think you got it, Maddie. Prior to the publication of the bulletin board notice to confirm their interest. And then we would strike the next sentence. Right. Let's just put a line through it for the moment. When Mandy is done, we're gonna ask her to- You need published there. Yep, hold on. I'm trying to figure out where to start. Sorry. Sorry. No, that's okay, I just fixed that one. No, you didn't, but that's okay. Oh, yep. No, so regarding the- Do you think that one email is adequate? Or what, Darcy? I'm sorry. For notice of the vacancy. I don't think so, yeah. I don't think I've ever received a positive response after multiple emails. Yeah. I think one is sufficient. Multiple emails have garnered negative responses that pretty much say, don't email me again, but I'm not sure I've ever received a positive. You emailed me enough, sure. I'll keep going. I'll do it, I'll give in, I'll give in, I'll do it. Oh, I'm just not saying that people will be convinced by two emails. I'm suggesting that it's possible for people to just miss an email. Sure, sure. Yeah, I mean, I know that for a fact. So I guess I liked the OCA process when Sarah was doing it, because it felt very personal that she followed up with phone calls. I think that Darcy's getting into the weeds. I hear you. I think it is a very nice touch, but I think each chair or their designee as long as they're following the basic policy, I think that's getting a bit into the weeds. And also, is it a amount of work that some chairs or the designees might resent? They might say, why are you forcing me to do this? And so, Mandy, if you're able to, well, maybe not, just show us what this would look like as a clean text and we can read it and see where we stand. Thank you. So I'm going to read this out loud if people can bear and speak up if you have a problem. Individuals interested in serving on a multiple member body appointed by the town council shall submit a CAF to express their interest in service. The chair of the recommending committee or the designee shall reach out by email at a minimum. Oh, nevermind. Let me delete that. Doesn't work there. Okay, it's all right. To all individuals who submitted CAFs within the two years prior to the publication of the Bulletin Board notice, comma, as well as two, is that right? As well as to any member of the committee whose term is expiring, I think that's right, to confirm their interest, okay? Only those individuals who respond to the chair's email, well, I would just say only those individuals who submit a CAF. So let's say Bob Hegner emails me and says, yeah, George, I'm interested. I don't think that that would not be sufficient because the other counselors would not know unless he submits a new CAF. So I would say only those individuals who submit a CAF after the Bulletin Board notice is published, my suggestion. Shall be considered, I would just say shall be considered part of the pool. Let's see if that, what do you guys think? You should probably also say board or committee. Yeah, that's true. Yeah, board or committee whose term is expiring. Yeah. Who knows, yeah. I added a couple of things. So as well as to any member of the board or committee whose term is expiring to confirm their interest and indicate the requirement to submit a new CAF. Okay. Only those who respond to the chair's email or who only those individuals who submit a CAF after the Bulletin Board notice is published shall be considered part of the applicant pool going forward. Yeah, that I like, but I'm worried about, so the chair of the recommending committee that doesn't need to shall reach out by email to a lot of individuals who submit a CAF then to use prior to publication of Bulletin Board notice as well as any member of the board or committee whose term is expiring to confirm their interest and indicate the requirements to submit a new CAF. Good. Only those. Or notify them of the requirement. Okay. And notify them. Them of the requirement to submit a new CAF to be. This applies only to that subset, which is going to be very small of people who are currently serving. So... No, it applies to all of them because I added that comma. Okay. All right. Okay. Right? Because you wanted everyone, even those that submitted the last two, a CAF in the last two years to submit a new one? That is correct. That is correct. You're right. That's what I'm suggesting. So it isn't your right. It isn't just the current members who are seeking reappointment, it's anyone. Thank you. Only those individuals that submit a CAF after the bulletin board notices probably shall be considered part of the applicant pool going forward. So if someone who is currently a member who wants to be reappointed forgets or neglects to submit the CAF, they are no longer a member of the pool. And anyone from the past two years who does not will no longer have to be contacted by the chair. They're considered essentially not part of the pool. I think the rest is what we already had. CAFs for multiple member bodies appointed by the town council are separate from the CAFs for time manager appointed multiple member bodies and are automatically electronically distributed to all counselors immediately. The chairs of the recommended committees or the designee shall reach out to each applicant upon receipt of their CAF to confirm receipt and inform them of the current status of appointments to that body. CAFs have personal records, not personnel records, not public documents and therefore cannot be shared or distributed by counselors. And then of course, you know, I object to that. Yes, yes, Darcy. So in the report, I will mention that one member objected to or objects to the idea that they're not public records. They're not shared. No, I object to. Oh, so Pat. Seriously, I think that they should be public documents. No, that's fine. I think they should be public documents. So two members. Normally I do not give names. I just say, but that's fine. That's fine. Okay, all right. Okay. We under sufficiency. I hope so. Back to tract. I'll be back in 30 seconds. Go ahead. I will be here. Unless I make it smaller, I can't fit it all on the page. Let's see if I can. There we go. All right. All right. This is difficult. It's not so much the size of the text. It's just, it's not like. Yeah, I can, I can again, go to just simple markup for people to read initially and then. Thank you. That would help me. That would help me and we can come back. And then we can come back and see what was changed or what wasn't. I don't remember whether this is one we got to. So after the notice of vacancy or pending vacancy has been published for not less than 14 days on the town bulletin board pursuant to charter section 912 he the recommending committee may assess the efficiency of the applicant pool. The recommending committee chair or the designation collect all caps submitted over the preceding. There should be two years now. Well, I think no, I think. What all caps submitted since the bulletin board notice was published. That's right. Since the public is the publication of the bulletin board notice. Good. That's fine. Right. And I think that next sentence is no longer needed. And maybe the next one as well. So it could be the applicant pool. Shall be all residents. Do we are we doing this sentence as highlighted? The recommending committee chair. There's the shall collect all caps submitted since the publication of the bulletin board notice. Well, for now, all caps who submitted caps since the public of the bulletin. So yeah, let's look at that for a moment. Is it what's it saying? Essentially saying that the chair obviously needs to collect all active caps and active caps are.  Good. And then we have the next bit is terminating and in making a determination regarding the efficiency of the pool. Recommending committee shall consider the following factors. OK. And again, this is the OK language. The number of applicants relative to the number of vacancies are impending vacancies. The council strives for more applicants and vacancies. I think that's fine. The demographic diversity of the pool. Council strives for diverse up and pool, including racial economic gender and generational diversity. And finally, the current needs of the body to be appointed, including any current burdens placed on the body by a vacancy. I'm happy with that language. Anyone have concerns, objections? We got two more paragraphs, Paul. Paul George. Yeah, no. I wouldn't mind getting a salary, but I don't want to. I don't want to do any of his work. So just buys gets a salary gets the town council. And therefore, George, please, Darcy, go ahead. I've always had a little trouble with the sentence the council strives for more applicants than vacancies. Yeah. Because if we have an opening and we have, if we have one opening and we have one qualified applicant, I'm not sure it makes sense to say no, we can't move on that. But I don't know what it means that we strive for. Well, I strive to be a decent and compassionate human being. But I often fall short. So I think that's, so I think Darcy, you're absolutely right. There are cases we know of where you have a perfectly qualified candidate and people have not responded in spite of all our best efforts. And then I think it's a decision for the committee. And I think they're perfectly free to having acknowledged that just put that one person forward. And of course, it's possible at the council level, counselors could object and say, no, we want you to go back and find more people. But I think this is just sort of advice, which is we strive. And I think you would agree, we do strive to have more. So we with DAB, we could have said, OK, we've got nine applicants. We'll stop. But we did feel that that's not adequate. And so we kept pushing and pushing until we got 18. So I think it's OK. The striving is aspirational. And it doesn't eliminate or doesn't rule out what you're suggesting. So I think that, yeah, anyone else? The committees have generally done that because as with DAB, we got more than we didn't. And we didn't stop the process. We said we're still good. Same with ZBA, you know, at one point we got something and we did say that's not sufficient. We went back, but then we said, no, we need to because even if we don't like that, we don't have a lot of choice, the current needs of the body trump that. And we absolutely must continue. And there are still qualified applicants and it doesn't take away from that, but it's just that weighing. So I think it's worded well enough. Does people want to see the truly marked up version? I don't. But anyone else want to? Would you like to see that, Darcy, just to see? OK, that's all right. OK, what it said in the past? Yeah, what? Yeah, marked up. Sure. OK, let's look at the marked up version for a moment. Cover your eyes. I guess I'll be nauseous. I'm not sure this one's changed much other than become more efficient. All right, it's all right. It's just looking at it now. I get vertigo when I see this. Yeah, yeah, there were no changes made to this particular section. Yeah, the other stuff about that we we just went through that. So but the word change is made to the next section. So maybe we should keep this up for a moment just so everyone can see it. The town council and therefore the recommending committee assesses the applicant pool holistically in the context of the needs and the body to be appointed. The recommending committee shall by majority vote to clear the applicant pool sufficient to proceed to interviews. Before or after this declaration, the council or the recommending committee may continue to engage in outreach to recruit additional applicants. Thoughts on that. So the only thing I have is since this was written, there's now a statement of interest portion and it goes more to the second paragraph prior to the posting of interviews. I think when we get through these next couple of sections, we need to be very clear when the applicant pool closes. Is it the posting of the agenda seven days before the interviews that has the names? Is it a random deadline before that? What when are we not accepting any more CAFs? When are we not accepting any more SOIs and all of that? And to be careful as we go through, so we might not be able to do it here. So and for this one, when do we disclose the number of applicants? Is it the posting of the interview names that the applicant pool is the numbers done or at the time we declare it sufficient that because in some sense, I think it might be nice to say, you know, we're declaring this sufficient because we think there are X number of applicants without disclosing names. You know, it all depends on whether the SOIs have been submitted, but maybe it would be nice to be able to actually talk to members at the meeting. We're doing cool, even if we're not talking names. No, hmm. So many of your thoughts will come back to this a little later when we get to SOIs, but we might have to make some changes here. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. And particularly to that last paragraph, when is it appropriate to disclose the number of applicants or potential applicants? You know, I'm just trying. I'm thinking out loud here. When we declare as efficiency of the pool, we don't least in the past, I have not said we got X number of applicants. We just declare it sufficient and then we go to SOIs. And at that point, once we get the SOIs back, that we can say in good conscience that we have, you know, X number of active candidates. So I'm not, again, thinking on top of my head, I'm not all that concerned about numbers up until we actually have the SOIs. And we can say with confidence, this is the number of people currently active candidates. But others may disagree. They may feel like it's important to know how many applicants we have earlier because I guess you can say encourage more people to apply. I mean, depending on the deadline is the committee knows, right? The committee knows, but do we want to make it public? Do we want to say, and that basically means to the council? I mean, I certainly made it public to the council, the number of applicants for DAB. I mean, I didn't hide that and there was no reason to hide it because we're trying to get people to apply. And so with any, I think the same as Zoning Board and perhaps ZBA and Planning Board, when you have a shortage of candidates, you want to make it clear to people that we need more candidates that we're, you know, but. It's like when we had discussions about whether the applicant pool is sufficient to not be able to actually say, hey, we're staring at, you know, four active or potential applicants, those that have expressed interest and we have six spots open to not be able to actually say that in a meeting. Right. The conversation gets stilted. So. So, right. Go ahead, Darcy. Knowing what would be the reason for not sharing that information? I understand not sharing names, but I'm I'm beginning to not understand why we can't actually disclose that we think we've got up to 20 DAB applicants might not be the case when SOIs are finally done and submitted. But we're basing our decision because then you. So here's what happens is we based our decision on a potential 18, 20, whatever the number was, but in the end, only nine SOIs were published and people start looking at those two and go, well, did they really base it on just nine? Right. Could we just remove the sentence? That's what I'm wondering. I'd support that. Well, I mean, I guess the question, why do we have this end? What was the reasoning? Um, I think. Certainly with the bodies we're dealing with and given our previous statements above, we are trying to create as diverse and broad a pool as possible so we can choose the best possible candidates.  Yeah. Anyone ever thought I just I'm not recalling now why we thought this is important. It's like we have agreement on it. Well, I think for the moment, we do Darcy, again, maybe someone on the council, maybe Evan, perhaps we'll refresh our memory. This might be something he felt strongly about. And I just can't. No, I'm serious. I mean, I just can't recall what the concern was. I think the concern was not the we don't have enough, but the, you know, hypothetically say we had gotten 50 applications for the DAB. And we disclose that it would discourage others. I think it was the other end. Although I think over the last three years, we've found that's generally not. Yeah. An issue. No, exactly. Yeah. Yeah. So I think we will. Let's suggest we were suggesting striking it. And if Evan observes it in concerns, he can raise that a council. But I think I think we're agreed selection guidance. Now, I had felt and I'm not sure you all agree that this language, essentially, not in complete detail, but in essence, has already been expressed above. And so I felt it could be removed. This basically just copied from the appointed committee handbook. And so I felt this language had already been articulated above under. What was the time to remember anymore? What was number three? Anyway, the applicant pool. I think it's also expressed under criteria for a healthy, multiple member body. Some of it. Yes, exactly. Right. So we're not going to remove it yet because people may want to consult it and feel like maybe there's something specific in this that should be articulated elsewhere. But I felt that it could be removed. So prior to soliciting statements of interest, developing interview questions or holding interviews. The recommending committee shall by majority vote adopt selection guidance for filling the vacancy and shall provide that document to the full town council and all known applicants prior to the deadline for submitting statements of interest. I think the rest of this is fine for each multiple member body. The recommended committee may create a standard reference list and it's may create not shall and that's something people should note. Because I think committee should be given some leeway here, but you may not agree. May create a standard reference list of the skills and characteristics of a successful member of that body and the knowledge and expertise related to the work of that body. While acknowledging that each multiple member body will have its own unique selection guidance. Selection guidance overall should be based upon the following considerations so far so good. And this again is pretty much straight from OCA as I recall except for number three. I think we made a slight change, but the council considers the following factors to be important for multiple member body to be healthy. A strong base of seasoned members who have completed or nearly completed at least one term as a member. These members bring an understanding of process knowledge and can mentor new members and take a leash fine newer members who have served less than one term. These members bring new energy outlook and ideas of the body and ensure the body will continue to have a strong base of seasoned members in the future. And then three members who reflect the diversity good of the town's residents. For example, an age gender race income residents, etc. and are broadly represented the town good just. In fact, thank you. In my document that we were looking at earlier. I thought we should change we did change it. Well, I think these are might be some of my, I'm not sure we got to this last time these might be some. I think that blue is my suggestions. Okay, alright. Does it mirror the criteria above and let's look. Let's look. Yeah, I think that. income residents. Up above right here. It's just it's the stricken. It's the stricken. I think Darcy's thinking referring to this one committee handbook race experience income place of residents so we could add experience in. Right. We're going to mirror what's up above racial economic gender. Yeah, because that one's right here race, economic gender generational. Right. We just have to pick the language. And I think this is fun. Again, race, gender, age, I think that's generational but yeah, like we should just copy this group here. You want to take that group and insert it up above. Okay, so keeping the same language for the sake of consistency would be good. I think people feel it covers the bases. Sorry. Yeah. Now, I'm rental versus home owner is is very clear residents is a little bit vague. And I'm not saying we need to change it but do people feel that that's clear enough that that's saying, you know, another group reading this. Another council would say, you know, what do they mean by residents. They could do things out of that. Yeah. It could base be based on income rental versus owner, but I also take that to mean residents within the town location in the town. So we don't want an entire committee potentially from one neighbor, one small area of town. Right. We want them to be living throughout town. So taking the word literally as where you reside. Right. And income would include rental. How do people feel about that they feel that's clear enough or do they want renters included renters versus homeowners. I know Evan has been a strong I would like to add renters. Yeah, I think Evan has been a strong advocate for this and considering a large number of renters that live in this town. I think that's something that and I think that we'd like to.  It isn't just students who are renters. So, exactly. Yeah. But, um, Is that a good way to word it. Let's see. So members who reflect the diversity of the town's residents, for example in age, gender, race, income, homeownership slash rental status residents, et cetera. And then input from bodies chair. I'm a little. Find the language a little clunky still. Well, I'm, well, were we talking about ownership or rental status residents, and then we're talking about residents and I heard that part of the thing but I'm. We're really talking about diversity of residents or diversity of location. Yeah, location of residents that would be fine, because that's what we're talking about we want people spread out all over town. That makes sense. And with the value of a document like this and the value of what we're doing is that it reminds us, including yours truly of these factors that can often get lost in the shuffle reminds us that we need to be considering these things. So this kind of specificity is helpful. I'm not seeing any hands but please speak up or raise your hand. I'm going to go to be input from bodies chair prior to the adoption of selection guidance the chair of the recommending committee, or the designate or designate shall solicit from the chair of the body that has vacancies, any preferred knowledge and or expertise to meet the current needs in the body of that body. So one thing that's been deleted from this section. Yep, that might be wise to delete. Given some recent experience is that that input is copied verbatim into the adopted selection guidance.  Well, so, so based on it could be based on a phone call could be based you know I call up the chair of income and say you know tell me what what's what's going on. So, so we ran into some issues as a committee at CRC with the input that was provided. Being sometimes too specific or not appropriate not appropriate in terms of what was what this document would be used for and so as and so I don't know what the solution is because you don't necessarily want to give the chair the ability to put the stuff before the rest of the committee has seen it. But it was also very awkward as chair to put some of the stuff that ultimately the committee removed into the draft document. And so I don't know what a good solution is but this statement does not mandate that you need to do anything right you you know it doesn't say and you shall include this verbatim in the selection guidance it just says, you shall reach out to the chair and solicit from the chair. You know, you have your knowledge or expertise to meet the current needs, and, you know, whether it's an email or a letter, or you know, inscribed in stone whatever it is that you get from them. You would then share that with your colleagues to read or discuss, but it doesn't have to. So I'm saying, I would not put that, actually, would you put this, this in. I would just leave it the way it is. It leaves it completely up to you as chair what you do with this information. If you want to put it in verbatim because the committee agrees this is exactly this is exactly what we want. Boom. If you look at it and go this is useless I mean so we got some I mean past experience, we got a long list of like 14 things and we thought most of this is pointless. So we didn't include it. We just ignored it. We shouldn't solicit anything from the chair. Because what if so if that's in there, and then the public has no idea what the chair said, and there's some question, you know, about who was selected right and it comes out later like one time we said chair said I don't want any professors. Yeah, like I just think that would leave the council up to leave us open to some, I don't know, ranker and criticism not that we always take that into account but I just think if, if we're gonna make public what a chair says right, then I don't think we should solicit it I think it's got to be one way or the other. If the chair would either have to take, you know, then the chair would have to take ownership of something they said that might not be as long as we tell them look we were writing it down or we have to make it public that this is a guidance and I would just do it one way or the other. Yeah, here's Sarah I guess I have trouble with the idea that we're appointing a member or members to a committee. And we're not actually talking to the chair for that committee about how things are going and what's going on. I mean that Whatever they say, then that you need when the chair talk when someone from whatever selection committee contacts the chair. The first thing they need to say is, I am going to just so you know, whatever you tell me for selection guidance, I have to make public it you know at least during the minutes or to my committee. So if there's anything that you feel like you don't want to say to the entire world or to my committee, then you need to think of that I would just make sure that that's a disclaimer. I just think you have it both ways. So we could say to be included in the draft selection guidance presented to the recommending committee, recommending committee. So it's a public record. The person, the chair would have been notified that it's going to be a public record, but it still leaves it up to the committee to decide when it finally publishes or creates its selection guidance, what to include and what not to Okay, how do people feel about that. Yeah, Darcy. I just have something. It seems like we're all we're earlier saying that we're going to have standard a stand, well that the committee may create a standard reference list of skills and care characteristics for a successful member of that body. Which I'm hoping does happen because it's kind of ridiculous to repeat it over and over. But anyway, I I This only says that you're soliciting the preferred knowledge or expertise to meet current needs, meaning to me that means, you know, planning board, we need an architect, you know, All of our architects are gone or we need a planner, we need whatever. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Not not subjective. Right, right. Like, we need to balance out the committee. Right, right, right. And in a way it seems it only does really apply to planning board, maybe I mean ZBA. You think so I mean they would say we need an architect we need a lawyer we need. The selection guidance this year was very helpful for discussion and all. All right. All right. It makes similar decisions that planning board does when reviewing. Right. Right. That is correct. So good for those two bodies and it's very specific. And it would be included in the draft selection guidance. Okay. I like this. I think we're ready to move on. I am. All right now things get a little interesting. This is reappointments. And I think we've gone through this and various versions. And I think everyone's on the same page. So I will say the blue is me so it's probably hasn't been discussed. Okay, well, let's, let's take a closer look. Generally, if a member of a multiple member body appointed by the town council is seeking reappointment. They're given preference in appointment for up to six years of total consecutive service. Now you introduced the word total, which is okay, I guess, but I told service. Do you because the key idea here. Excuse me. I think it's just consecutive. I think we can take out total. I think that's fine. Okay. To take advantage of the experience expertise gained into honor of all three time committed member of members. If a member has served six consecutive years or will have served more than six consecutive years if reappointed. And there are other qualified applicants. Preference will be given to a. To, I'm sorry, other applicants. But anyway, it is required longer previous service may be appropriate. Now here, I think it's an additional language. Yes. Yeah, let's look closely the town council will treat every opening, whether a seat is held by a current member who seeks a reappointment or not. As a vacant position. Residents seeking reappointment will have their current service and experience on the body considered as part of the process. I think that's a key recommendation to the council. So that's the new language I added and I'll just say it came directly from the CRC adopted guidance. Much of the rest of the language came from other committees adopted guidance. So I felt it was inappropriate to leave out the difference that CRC was at least we discuss. And. My people pondered that for a minute. I guess I think it might, I mean, again, I'm sorry, I'm just going to speak up, but. I'm just going to repeat what we've already said. Well, I think, I mean, I could be wrong, but I'm thinking that I'm above what we've said essentially is. That, you know, preference means essentially. Acknowledging and taking seriously current service and experience on the body. That's what I take preference to me. So. And that's what you have to honor. Volunteer commitment of members and experience that expertise gain. I think to my reading this sort of restates that. I think we need to reinstate it to be honest. I think, I think we. I actually like the wording. Sometimes redundancy isn't a bad thing when you're, when you're covering. You know, when you're talking about a subject, a subject very specifically, I sometimes I think it bears repeating because if a new committee is going through or somebody's looking like, Oh, I don't know, what do I do? As far as reappointments go, someone may just specifically read this or in the case of someone being critical, I feel like they might say, well, I didn't see an under reappointment. So in that case, sometimes I think a little redundancy is all right. I think that's what the second sentence says is essentially repeating for the sake of emphasis. What we already said above, which is that you are given a preference to take advantage of experience and expertise gained and to honor the voluntary time commitment. So this you feel repeating it again is worth, but it's not adding anything new. You're stating a reaffirming. The idea that your service and experience will be considered. That strikes me as just a tad weaker than preference. Maybe Joe has her hand up. Please. So I would say a couple of things. I also recommended getting rid of the. Highlighted above as long as the members and active contributing member. That's a statement that we talked about a lot and. But is. Is hard to gauge. Whereas so my, my. When someone reads the sentence, residents seeking reappointment will have their current service and experience of the body considered as part of the process. To me, I read that as good and bad. Like just because you served two years or three years, doesn't mean you actually. Have experience and expertise gained. And we're. You have that expertise and experience gained because it's entirely possible they don't write. And in the latest. Interviews force for planning board ZBA and finance, I believe. Members of the committees all commented on how those seeking reappointments really were able to show through their answers to questions. The experience that they did gain. To show that they had learned stuff and done that. And that was a very, very positive. And so I think this sentence can go either way actually. And can hurt someone to take away from the preference. That might be given from the sentence above. So I think it. I think it's valuable to have in there. So you feel it actually adds a little bit, not just repeats, but adds a little bit and gives in works both ways. And reinforces this Sarah saying. That a point we've already made as well. Good. Because I can imagine a situation where you're looking at somebody say on Fincom. And you're doing the interview. And when you're done with the interview, you look at each other and you think. Wow. What did this person learn in the last two years? And at that point, you might consider that a relevant factor. And good. Okay. Okay. Darcy had her hand up. Please, Darcy, go ahead. Yeah, I, yeah, my, my reading of it. Initially was that it's, you know, it's in there to. To weaken the preference. And I don't, I don't know. I feel like it can go either way, but it's obviously could be used to weaken the preference. So I, you know, I think it's a little redundant. I think it's a little redundant. But I, and I probably would. Leave it out. But. It puts pressure on. On the reappointment people up for reappointment. To go through a grueling process in order to get reappointed when they've just put in two years of hard work of volunteering on a committee. I'm not sure that's fair, but. We're making them go through the process either way. Right. They're going to have to do the interviews. They're going to have to submit an SOI. They're going to have to do everything. And, you know, it just puts them on notice and puts everyone on notice. That we take these appointments very seriously. And, and we assume that they do as well. And I think in most cases. That's true. But there could be a case or cases. Where it's not true. And this, I think. I'm beginning to see the merit of this is saying, you know, to everyone. Your current service and experience. Or something we take into consideration. For a reappointment. So. The last sentence comes right from the. Committee handbook. And. I think it's important that everyone understand. That no one is under any obligation to seek reappointment. And the council is under no obligation to offer it. And I did add the word seek or before. I think it's important that everyone understand. That the council is under no obligation to offer it. And I did add the word seek or before accept. And then just clarifying. I added the to a resident seeking it at the end too. I just thought it was slightly more clarifying. All right. Statement of interest. Please. So the blue again is. Yeah. Yeah. I have one question. This is the first time we talk about a committee handout at all. So it kind of comes out of nowhere. With no indication as to where it comes from initially who's in charge of it. What happened. They even exist. They do. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't have one, but there's one for Fincom. There's one for planning board and there's one for ZBA. So the planning board and ZBA ones, I don't believe were created by the committee. I went and updated on this year and received guidance from the planning staff. No, planning staff created it. Right. But it's what they. And, but there's, there's no indication anywhere whose job. Is it. That's what they had in our packet. And so you could put that they were updated, but I think it's really important to send them out. You know, if you want people to acknowledge. So if you want to put like they're updated or. You know, that the chair will update. I don't know. Yearly or every other year with a member of staff. That's fine. I don't know. I don't know if we have. You know, that new one will be in there because they're, they're all in this. They're all in the OCA report. So I would like to keep them in a report. I think that's. I absolutely agree. We need the handouts. They've been very useful for planning board and ZBA members. It's just, there was no reference until here about it. And so I actually think we might want to add a section somewhere. In this document. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. The table of contents. So do you want to just put in, you know, I think it's, you know, clearly a copy of the committee handout. I think we need. What it is and where they can be found ZBAs and planning boards are on pages now on the town website. Right. Right. But that, that again is in the weeds. I think the point is that the point of this is simply to say, look. I think we need to do this. We need to do this. We need to do this. We need to do this. We need to do this. This next step. You send this, this, and this.  Who knows what version it's in. All right. I don't think that really matters. It's just, there's, I assume there exists the committee handout. Matters because this should be a living document. This is a living document that we are leaving. Just like any other committee handbook to other members of the committee. We don't, we don't create the committee handout. We're not responsible for it. Create the committee handouts. Well, that's, that was. So they are really the council's handouts, which is why I think we need a separate paragraph talking about them. And I'm willing to track that. Okay. So you're saying for fit com ZBA and plan. Since we make the appointments. And even though in the past, the Fincom, for instance, committee handout came from the old finance committee. And the planning and ZBA handouts came. I'm not sure there were handouts in the past. I think this was done to aid the council's and help the applicants to the council. I don't think there were handouts in the past. No, surely, surely when people apply to those committees, the planning board or somebody sent them a handout. I'm pretty sure the OCA did it. I'm pretty sure the OCA did it. But before OCA back in the old days, you know, before the civil war. Nope. So if you, if you applied to, to planning board. You just showed up for an interview. And just without any handout saying when you meet what you do. You know, when I, when I was appointed to Fincom, I didn't get anything that said, just, I was just brought in and I was, things were explained to me. Okay. So I agree with you that that's not appropriate and that there should, and clearly there must be, because we have a reference here. But my feeling is sort of like, you know, so somebody's going to have to go find the committee handout. And I don't really want to get into a week. I don't know. I don't know. I don't think that's appropriate. I don't think that the chair, the chair of the recommending committee should ensure that the handout is up to date. Plus it should just be, we, this should be a document. That is a living document that is, but part of the charter or part of what this is why we're doing it. So that we have a living document. So you don't have to be like, well, I don't know. It's great. You remember when it's the very end, we had a whole table of contents and we had every single thing included. Right. No, absolutely. So that should be a, it should be included in this ultimately, or a link to it should be included. And maybe a sentence to the effect that the, the recommending committee chair. Should. What? Make sure. I recommend just adding, we'll change all these numbers, but add in something right after bulletin board notice or right before bulletin board notice. I don't know what numbers we've got that just says committee handout, just like we have statement of interest title, or. It's like two sentences. And I can draft. Oh, man. Draft it. Right now. And then. The appendix or whatever can link to the current ones on the website. I know when Athena updated the ZBA and the planning board ones, we tried really hard not to change the link. So. I don't know. I don't know. All right. Re-update the document so that the links stayed the same. Right. So many, and it sounds like everyone else is suggesting is a separate item, a number of whatever, five, six, seven, this title committee handout. And some language to the effect. That a committee handout. I don't know. Right. So here it just needs to be committee. Back up to the. I don't know. I don't know. I'll draft something because it'll go up there. Not as a separate item, which like a six or a seven or an eight. I feel like it should be well before we talk about applicant pool. But I guess not. Well, where it goes. I'm not so much worried about. I guess the question here is, do people feel it needs a separate entry? Cause that's what I'm hearing. And it won't be very long. And it will have a link. It will have a link to the current, you know, that version of it. And what's it going to say? It's going to say. What's it going to say? It's going to say that there must be a committee handout. And it needs to be updated by the chair. Every year. This isn't new. This was, we had the only thing that's new with this is it managed Joe is suggesting that the chair of the committee should be able to take a look at it and see if it still seems up to date or checks in with a staff member to make sure that it's up to date, but this isn't. This isn't new. This is right. It's just not in this document. And it's the first time I've heard about it. So that's all right. I just, I was dreaming we could get through this. Well, I mean, it's not hard. It was in the OCA document. So even if somebody wants to just go back and just see where fit in, I mean, it was there. Okay. All right, fair enough. And Mandy is as we speak, she is. Writing up something that may, may do the trick, but the OCA document can also be consulted. So these, these handouts were so that they were given to people ahead of the interview so that when we asked them, we, we would ask them, have you read it? Do you know what the obligations are? This was a way for the committee to know that the person actually knew what it was entailed. I think that's where the committee was able to read it. And they had a lot of recommendations that they would have in the evening hours what night they met. That's why we had it. So each multiple member body that the town council points members to shall have a committee handout. The chair of the recommending committees shall at minimum. Of once a year ensure that the committee handout for the appropriate board of committee is updated accurate. I think we have those in the appendix already, right? The OCA. Yeah, we do. But the OCA ones, at least for ZBA and planning board, are now out of date. They've been on. Can I just ask though, is it still in part of the procedure that the chair send them, email them? Or because originally in OCA, when the chair was before, when the chair let someone know that they were going to have an interview, they were emailed. And then they were also given to each person when they came for doing in-person. They were also provided to them again when they came in for the in-person interview. So I don't know if that's just been lost, or if it's an, honestly, I don't know, because I haven't done it. So they are now distributed at the time? Plus for the states and understatement of interest. Right here. So at that point, the chair sends out the deadline for, tells them this is the deadline for submission, gives them the submission guidelines at triple low, sends them a copy of the committee handout, and the adopted section guides, which we all have been doing, but this sort of codified it. And up above, what you all are suggesting, and Mandy has written, is a clarification of the term that we've never used before. So it just says what a handout is. And that says the chair needs to keep track of it. Okay. Yeah, so when soliciting the statement of interest, they have to include the selection guidance in the committee handout, along with whatever's outlined below. Okay. And it's 1229, and I have a hard stop. Okay, I hear you, that's appropriate. I think, despite my best intentions, we're getting, I think we're making real progress. I appreciate the hard work you're all making. I appreciate Mandy getting a document, and I'll make sure that this document is preserved. And, but I think unless people have checked, we could either continue with the four of us, or I think maybe perhaps appropriately, given the nature of this particular task, we want everybody to be present, if at all possible, that we leave the rest of this for next time. It also would give people a chance to look over what we've done. I can say, give you a preview of coming attractions. As you know, we do think-com interviews differently than everybody else. And so I'm going to be resisting some of the sort of more specific details. I agree there should be an interview, but I'm going to be resistant to sort of, questions in advance and that sort of thing, but we'll talk about that next time. And also the idea of special meetings. Again, we tend with income to do the recommendation right after interviews, and I don't see any problem with that, but I can understand that other committees do it differently. So I guess people should just think about that, whether they really want to have a special meeting, do they want to have questions written out in advance. We'll leave that for next time. Just to clear stuff up, since I'm going to send this off to George with new titles and all for inclusion next time, can I clean up items one to six, not the preamble, but items one to six, the six we sort of talked about today so that all the changes can be accepted. So it's just more readable for the next meeting. Yeah, how do people feel about that? Do they want to- I'm going to rule with that. Are do people want to leave it the way it is for the moment, just to double check? The comments are still there though, right? I've been deleting some comments of particularly mine that were addressed, but I can stop deleting, I can not delete certain comments. Yeah. Yeah, so yeah, I have, I'm keeping track of all my objection. So, I'll be able to see that later. So you're okay with it being cleaned up? I'm okay with that. Is there a band-aid group? It doesn't necessarily mean our agreement, it's just- No, no, we're not, we haven't had voted. Yeah, believe me, we know that. No, no, that's all right. We haven't voted. For ease of readability, it's closer to final next time, because hopefully we can get it to final then. Yeah, right. Okay, good. So Manny will do that cleanup. We will, this will be obviously again, item number one on the agenda for July, what is it? July 12th. And just quickly, the surveillance technology by-law has been sent out for legal review. It's possible that that could be back in our hands before July 12th. I just don't know. I do plan to start us back into the process of by-laws for future consideration, which we've obviously suspended now for almost a month and a half. But our primary task will be to get this finished. And unfortunately, it won't be further to July, whatever it is, council meeting, but we will get it finished. And we may have surveillance. And I hope I very much want to start the process again for by-laws. And I may reach out to some of you individually in your particular areas where you're working and see where you're at or just give you a prod. But I assume the rest of the summer we will be focusing on this. And we did agree at one point if we have to, to meet more frequently, just to get it done. I'm not gonna do that yet, but I think that's something to keep in mind. Sarah, I'm sorry, Darcy. Sarah might have been first. No, I just, I looked at you and said Sarah. Is the holdup on surveillance technology just hearing from KP law? Exactly, yes, yes. And I don't think it makes sense for us to do our review until we have the law for legal review in hand. And I will remind Paul, as it gets close to our next meeting date, because he does often need to remind him with this stuff. But it has been sent out right away. Mandy sent it to me and I sent it right to Paul and Paul acknowledged. So he did acknowledge he had it and he did send it out. So I think we'll have it. I'm sorry, it was actually you, Darcy, right? It was TSO, TSO sent, right? I don't have the minutes in front of me. So we're not gonna do minutes. Do we have any public present? I need to look. I don't see anyone. Okay, we do not. So I think we're done. Thank you, everyone. Bye. All right. Bye-bye. I'm adjourning.