Who knew where I would. What? We're up and we're recording is Michelle attending this meeting. Does anyone know? I have seen nothing. Okay. Let me. Okay. He mentioned having sent an email to do well, but I didn't see it. I tried to get in on my phone and it said. Link was invalid. She said she'll be here a little late. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. So Athena, maybe you want to texture another or try to get her another link.  I apologize. I usually have it on paper, but I don't have all my notes with me right now. Yeah. Okay. So seeing a presence of the quorum. I'm going to call that the. 19th meeting of the governance organization and legislation committee to order. And pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 extended by chapter 22 and 107 of the acts of 2022 and extended by chapter two of the acts of 2023. This meeting will be conducted by a remote means members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so via zoom or by telephone. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time via technological means. I'm going to call on each counselor now to find out if they are present and can hear and be heard. Lynn Griezmer. Present. Mandy Johannike. Present. And Jennifer Taub. Present. And Michelle Miller apparent will be late to this meeting. Thank you. We've had a change of agenda. Mandy, Joe and I are. Going to be, we need to review very carefully. KP laws. Information. And so we'll be bringing this back at another time, but we will not be looking at the zoning proposal today. But I want to remind everybody on the committee and if there are members of the public. That GOL does not deal with substantive issues. So contrary to some of the comments we've received. Voting today on anything that we look at will be about clearness, consistency and action ability and only those things. We are occasionally asked by the council to look at substantively at certain leg, certainly the bylaws that have been up for review. But that is a special request of the council and has nothing to do with the zoning proposal or anything else on our agenda today. So that being said, Jennifer, I want to thank you. For coming forward and. Being willing to chair the part of the meeting on zoning. I appreciate any preparation that you may have had to do to do that. Yes. Jennifer. Yeah. So I actually, I don't know if it's appropriate to ask it now, but I do have a question because some of the. You know, so I appreciate that the sponsors are going to go back and, you know, review carefully the KP law comments. Yeah, the ones that did get to substance. Does it have to go back to CRC before it comes back to, I mean, if you make changes that are substantive. Can it come right to GOL or does it have to go back to CRC? That's my question. I believe, and I'm there are two people here who may be able to embellish or correct. That if the sponsors. Make a substantive change during the GOL meeting. That is acceptable. So if, and if we have a resolution and there's no sponsor, particular sponsor present, we might have to go back. We can't make a substantive change, even if there's a specific error. But if the sponsors or sponsor is there, then we can ask their opinion. We, it's hard sometimes not to bring up a substantive issue, but it is not what we are voting on. Mandy or Athena for clarification. Athena can go first, if she would like. I have a feeling we're going to do the same thing, but GOL's review is clear, consistent and actionable. So even if sponsors have opinions about the substantive issues, that's not a GOL. That's not what we're doing at GOL. So what would happen if there's a substantive change. That would go to the council. Okay. That's what I was going to address. The sponsors in the past, when things like that has have happened. It's been GOL has either looked at whatever came from the committee without the substantive changes, but sometimes GOL looks at it with the substantive changes and at least recognizes that the substantive changes are done in response to legal. And that those changes seem generally are noted, I think when it makes it to the council of versus, you know, there's a difference between what the committee looked at and what the council has. And here are the reasons there's that difference and the legal opinions generally provided and all. So a part of the reason why Pat and I need to really look at it is there are a few substantive things in there that. May need additional talking to people because. Many of those substantive things where things provide were words provided by town staff. Not us in general. We need to, we need to figure out what's going on and look at it closely. But I do want to say, I remember very specifically with the first time that children's mental health resolution proclamation earlier came up. That there was some struggle about around language. And I was able to, and I sat and I rewrote what the, I thought the sponsors were trying to say. And they were present. And I. No, that's all right. Go ahead. What I was going to say is with bylaws. In the past, sometimes GOL has accepted some of those changes as for the purpose of making something actionable or making something consistent or clear. As long as the sponsors agree to it. So it's kind of fluid, Jennifer. I think in this scenario, Mandy and Pat, it sounds like you're planning on sending. Something to GOL. With changes based on KP laws recommendation for a GOL to review with clarity, consistency, and action ability. Is that right? So I would say that it's probably not appropriate to do that during a GOL meeting because that's not part of your review. But if you have a new. If you have changes based on KP law, then you would forward those onto GOL. So that's why we're withdrawing it now. I'm sorry, I want to follow through with some questions as well, but Jennifer, go ahead. No, I just want to say I appreciate that because I was very, I emailed Athena just a half hour before the meeting because I was like, so yes, I appreciate that when it comes back, you will have, yes, we were going to have to veer into a discussion of substance, which didn't feel comfortable. So I think this. I'm glad that we won't be in that position today. So Pat, I want to clear up language because she views the fact that it's not going to be on the agenda. And then you just use the words withdrawn. I think you mean post. Post phone. Yes. Thank you for that correction. Anything else? Yes. When will you be, when do you think you'll be ready to come back? We will have to discuss that. Yeah, I think the hope is that. That it could still remain on the July, the August 7th. There's a GOL meeting on August 7th. So it, the need to review KP law should not delay. Finalizing GOL review prior to August 7th. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Now the other thing that I would like to withdraw. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Post phone. Thank you. Thank you. Is the bylaw review because we have not gotten word back yet from Carol Hepburn or the historic district. And so we can't. Work on that. We have not gotten an update from Paul about the bylaws that have gone to the human rights commission beyond the one we got earlier. So we'll be back to our next meeting as well. So what we're going to be looking at today are rules and procedure. And if. A thing that could pull them up, I'd like to start by going to. Rule six. About. I believe it's conduct. Mandy is what you put in the packet. The same as what we had. I believe it is. It is the version I used to redraft rules five and six. Per GL request. And so I don't think we've looked at that version since. That redrafting. So I was hoping it's the right one. And before we go on, I'm going to say that counselor Miller has arrived. Thank you very much. And I'm going to ask that you let us know whether you can hear and be heard. Yes, thank you very much. Very well. Great. Thank you. And I, Pat, you might. For Michelle's. Benefit just repeat that we've postponed two items on the agenda. Yeah, we've postponed the zoning. Proposal review and we, because of legal, we want to really look at the legal thing and changes, language changes, substantive changes. And we're. We're not going to be postponing the bylaw review because we haven't gotten back information that we need to continue on that. So those will both be postponed to the next meeting. So we're going to look today at go back to rules of the procedure. And I would love it if we could go. I don't, I didn't write the page down, but a very, I'd like to go into rule six. Okay. Just for, as Athena pages through, I had written rules. Well revised five and six based on the last GL conversation regarding. Clarity on what's what in terms of where things should be. Okay. Let's okay. We can go back to five then. I'm sorry. I don't know why you wanted six, but some of what you're thinking about might be in five instead of six now. I don't know. I was reading it this morning. I didn't notice that, but let's go ahead. So Mandy, you want to pick up where we are here? Yeah. So our last conversation at GL was really talking about the impacts of Southboro and what, what is public comment. Rules versus what is rules of other conduct for the public at meetings who are in an audience versus speaking during the public comment period and not confusing them within the rules. And then also talking about non public comment periods, rules for comment for the rest of the meeting that is not a public comment period. And so. Yeah, and as I looked at the meeting gets difficult. So I was tasked with trying to clarify all of those different parts of the meetings and, and rules within our structure now. And so I don't know what. I think blue might be the new changes. That's true that no one that we haven't discussed, but it was attempting to show and, and draft what we had discussed in GL is what I would say. So I reworded 5.1 into public comment period at meetings instead of regular meetings to clarify what 5.1 is really about. Discussing, which is public comment periods. So I'd like to. Oh, I'm sorry. Do this formally. Go ahead. It's fine. I don't know if this is where it belongs, but I believe it does. Andy Steinberg at our last council meeting at the end of the meeting. He believes that one of the things we should discuss is the concept that someone might sign up for public comment. And then yield their time to someone else. And specifically someone else who has already spoken. Athena, do you have any information about that? So some. Mandy has her handups and she might say the same thing. I'm not sure if it's in their rules, but you hear that at some public meetings, folks yielding their time to the next person. I think that's probably a decision that the council can make about its own rules. Mandy, I was going to say the same thing. I'm trying to find it. I had thought we had. We had not said that yielding could not happen. At least up until now in the public comment part of it, but I thought, and I was trying to find it. But I might not have it. I thought we had said yielding would not be allowed for counselors and other speakers within the meeting. But I'm. Browsing quickly is not always. But yeah, people. We could decide either way, right? But I think given that we have seen that happen recently, we should make a decision and make it clear within the public comment part of it. I think there's one person per comment period. That is unclear, given what has been happening regarding yielding. Who is actually making the public comment. If a time is yielded to someone else. Athena, do you have any reference in Robert's rules? No, I haven't looked at Robert's. About this. I'm sorry. What? I haven't looked at Robert's rules regarding the specific issue. And open meeting law doesn't address public comment at all. So there's no guidance there. Yeah. I would suggest on D number of public comments that we make a note at this point. To come back to this with thoughts about yielding. And clarification of. One per person per comment. In other words, you're suggesting we don't discuss it now. But we do want to make sure that we. Decide where we might speak to this or something. I mean, that. I definitely, I mean, I, I hope that we could start wrapping this up. So if we go ahead and have a discussion about it, that's fine. Well, it's interesting to me because the first, one of the first times it happened. Jennifer, you go first. I'm sorry. I didn't see your hand. Go ahead. I'm just, um, yeah. I mean, I am wondering if we look in Robert's rules. If, you know, if there's sort of a default, you know, I, because it's not something we see happen a lot. But I just assumed when it happened, it was just a basic part maybe of, of how meeting Robert's rules. That's right. This is not saying we want to do this, but. Um, but we might, I mean, could you. Could we, could it be whatever we wanted it to be?  Because it seemed so it doesn't happen, you know, five or six times. That's my question to Athena. Yes. Athena, but answer if you can answer her question, but you had your hand up to make it a comment of your own. Well, whether or not Roberts rules addresses this issue, the council's rules supersede Roberts rules. So, so the council can make a decision about its own rules that would, that would apply before we go to Roberts rules. And since the rules at this moment are silent on that issue. I'm, which, uh, I'm not sure that it's, I don't actually, I need to check the rule book, but, um, the council can make a different decision about how to address that issue. Okay. We can make any decision we want. Okay. Well, as long as it's in compliance with the other, uh, Laws, which we have just recently learned in South bro, that there are other laws to take into consideration regarding public comment. So as long as you're not in violation of those laws, which supersede the council's rules, then you can make a different decision about how to take that up. Yeah. Mandy and then I'll make a comment. Okay. I'm not sure if the, if the, the building of time is not allowed. Um, we already have in the rules that. Public comments are one per person per comment period. Um, yielding essentially. Allows a person if they are organized to make. Multiple comments during a public comment period or extend their public comment period. Um, and so I feel like it. Um, does not treat everyone identically. In terms of the amount of time people get to speak at public comment periods. Um, so I am not in favor of allowing yielding. I would prohibit it. I would just completely prohibit it. Yeah, there's another, um, I'm not in favor of allowing yielding. I also remember that there are times when people say, Oh, I have an, I, I have a different topic. So I'm going to, I want to be able to speak again. And that's been allowed. And so I think that's something that has to go into this mix as well. Athena, before I continue, go ahead. I think Andy brought this up too, but the issue of how to, how to deal with, um, Um, Um, Um, I think Council wants to address that. I think Andy brought that up as well. And that might be worth part of this discussion. Okay. So we'll, we're going to, yes. Thank you on that. And before Michelle, I'd like to, to say. Uh, the very first time that in recent memory that there was time yielded. It seemed. Uh, reasonable. two or three times and then they didn't really want to speak either of those times and then somebody else then the person yielded their time to somebody else that feels like an imbalance where the first one um yielding it giving additional time to somebody felt kind of reasonable but on monday i did not find that reasonable so i really want to look at that michelle thank you pat i'm sorry um yeah i guess another just point of view to think about is to me when i've seen it happen both at the school committee meetings and in our meetings when it's happened it feels like activism it feels like a way to show solidarity um it feels to me uh while i understand that if it got out of control um you know that might posit a challenge for us but i personally just like culturally think i'm on the opposite side of mandy on this one i feel i would absolutely uh want to allow it um and with some specific criteria in there um that would be clear about you know what it means so that's my thoughts right now on this thank you uh did i see jennifer enough go ahead i advise strongly against making this about what the issue someone is talking about it should the rules ought to be applied equally regardless of the content of the public comment the i'm sorry that regardless of the content did you say that right so absolutely absolutely i think we're getting to content saying that saying that someone has an important issue and so we're going to allow them to speak more than everyone else i think is is a dangerous position to put the council in because somebody else might say that what they're saying is also very important and the council cutting them off is uh not applying the rules equally so i advise against making it about the content of the public comment if you want to allow people to yield time then everyone should be allowed to yield time regardless of what it's about if you want to let people go over then you need to let people go over regardless of what they're talking about but this is this becomes problematic and because there is there's a lack of consistency in out in applying the rules that we have and that concerns me uh jennifer and then i believe it's michelle and then lin thank you athena um yeah so i i would want to maybe explore the site i feel like this doesn't come up very often it's just like limiting you know public comment because we don't want to go on for three hours when that's rarely we're rarely on that slippery slope or slope at all um so if i would feel more comfortable saying like um it could happen once or twice in a meeting that you could yield to someone that's already spoken that's something between not at all and um where it could what is that called when they do it in congress um you know when you just keep talking i'm forgetting the word filler buster filler bustering right you know something between not at all i'm going to do that at the next council meeting so we get a good taste of it right that was the word thank you so that that's where i'm going with this i'd like to find some happy medium michelle yeah i just wanted to clarify uh clarify my comment i don't know if athena was was responding to what i had said but i i i i didn't mean to say that uh it was uh you know regarding the particular content um i just mean to say that i think that it brings something to the table that i value you i guess is what i'm saying it wasn't it wasn't about your comment at all other people had said other people had said you know that someone had something important to say or someone wanted to say something about two different issues and so we're going to allow them to talk twice so um not no not say we got yours okay perfect okay thank you lin um i i don't believe we should completely eliminate yielding but i think we should let let we should limit the number of times one individual can have can be yielded to that's i don't that's very awkward language uh but um kind of with michelle on this one i i understand that it's it could be cultural it could be political it could be advocacy um but i it's a strategy let's get strategy and and some people have been using that strategy recently uh and we leave it to the public to judge how effective that is uh but let me just say i would prefer that we just limit the number of times time can be yielded to an individual who's already spoken mandate so i'm trying to go through some scenarios you get someone that comes to a meeting or has three people in their household so they can raise their hand on zoom three times because they have themselves a spouse and two kids and someone who lives alone and can't attend a meeting who can only raise their hand once the person that happens to have multiple people in their household once they learn this rule can get 12 minutes to speak the person who doesn't gets three minutes to speak but what i'm hearing from lin and others is saying well you know six minutes a person might not be that bad well if six minutes is what we want we should just make it six minutes per person no yielding and allow everyone an equal opportunity to have an equal amount of time to speak without preference to whether they can garner friends to come and either in person sign up and sit there until their time is called to say i'm going to yield my time to someone or to garner friends online to do the same thing i think we should treat people who know the system and don't know the system the exact same and yielding preferences those who can work the system so if we don't think three minutes is enough time for people to speak in public comment then we should raise the minute level for everyone not allow some people to speak more than once because they have friends or know that they can work the system to get people to yield to them okay asina i had a different suggestion from mandy's that might address the issue in a different way that's not yielding that would maybe prevent that multiple people in a household from doing that over and over again right now we have number of public comments one per person per comment period you could clarify that one per person per comment period if time allows you allow another comment by the same person rather than yielding you could say if you want more than three minutes then you get in line behind everyone else who hasn't spoken yet so you could allow for two rounds for everyone and prohibit yielding and that might address some of the comments that made me think that's an interesting idea uh jennifer did you have your hand up and take it down yeah i did i wanted to michelle i didn't actually mean to raise my hand but since it raised on the raise um i i like Athena's um like thought process on that um if we are i don't know where we're at with 120 minutes um if you maybe have already approved that previously when i wasn't at a meeting but um i think the idea of allowing for a second round if we're still within that public comment period could be a good way to to reach the same goal it's still there's still something nagging at me about like the the advocacy piece um that i value but um you know i think that if it reaches the same goal um i would i would be supportive of that yeah and i feel like i could deal with Athena's version if if we were very clear about how it worked um but it does i'm sorry go ahead that's right i don't go it does seem to me that if we do that and it's an interesting idea okay i i we then need to also be very clear that yielding one's time is not allowed right so it's it's a combination of the two and that it still is maxed at two public comments because otherwise i can be at the end of the line and then i can be at the end of the line and then i can be at the end of the line and i might be the end of the line and so i have unlimited three minute periods right that was my suggestion to to do um a second round rather than yielding so that people wanting to speak twice aren't um speaking again before other folks have a chance to speak and it would be up to up to you in the council if you want to do two rounds or more than two that's interesting because i didn't catch that somehow in my little note that i'm writing here as you spoke so everybody anyone who spoke would have a chance to speak again either on the same issue or another issue but there would be no yielding of time right yeah i could go with that right because in a certain sense it opens up it's more equitable to everyone um and you know it's as i said it was very interesting last on monday the differences in the two mondays one where it was quite effective which the person spoke one more time and the other night where it started to just kind of be um less productive uh lin and then mandage oh or lin did you i do um i i just want us to think about this okay and i'm not saying i'm against it i want to think about it it now means that person a who spoke gets to the end of the line and spends their time rebuttling and criticizing person d who spoke and then person d says i want a second time even though i didn't sign up and it it changes the a little bit i mean we already get you know i don't agree i do agree that kind of thing and that's you know that is public debate and that is something the council should listen to so i'm not saying i shouldn't do this or that we don't want public debate a council means i'm just saying i want us to think about what this could look like mandy i was just going to say if we go with athena's idea item b the length of individual public comment is where i would suggest at the end of that we put yielding of your time shall not be allowed um and item d is where we would put one per person per comment period and then there'd be a sentence that says something like if there remains time in the public comment period under section c above um any person who has previously commented may speak may make one more public comment i don't know what the language would be but that's where i put it in section d that clarifies that it's within the time listed in c then we'd have to come up with wording but that's what i would do but i would put the yielding the inability to yield under item b jennifer okay so this athena did you get that all before sorry jennifer it's okay okay yeah i'm making that same yeah you need you need some yeah more time i think mandy joseph in section c you know no i thought it was big and then yes i i i misheard sorry that's sorry and i don't think that the uh committee has recommended 120 minutes yet so it sounds like that would go hand in hand if if this comes those changes would come together jennifer my printer just went on so go to live if you could go to live and come back as it's noisy then yes uh i'm wondering if on a second round we do go to a two-minute limit that feels reasonable to me i'm even wondering whether having a two-hour public comment period is i mean i think we've hit that but i don't know anyway jennifer so um yeah i don't know that i'm comfortable saying it has to be within the what is it hour and 20 minutes um i feel more comfortable with what you just suggested pat that everyone has a chance to speak again but maybe the second time it's two minutes so then everyone i don't think it's going to come up very often but everyone would have a chance to make a second comment but i think if that second comment and then do we have to specify i guess whether it's on the same topic or another so i i think that's an interesting and suggestion pat and worth discussing that seems to me i feel more comfortable with that and saying there can only be a second comment if it's within the time allotted in the thanks uh mandy i think you're next thanks um section e3 has a draft that non-residents um or not on a register don't get to speak if we've already exceeded 30 minutes so so c in e3 i think the last time we talked um we're sort of a working together if it's a really big issue um that attracts a lot of residents will go about two hours before we stop but um we need to preference residents first and we need to for lin to be able to decide two versus three minutes she needs the presiding officer needs to know who all how many people are seeking to speak um and so e was to say you know we're going to preference residents first um and so only and and i think the people not on the register or having raised their hand that was to address the concern lin just talked about with a second public comment period of people who didn't originally intend to make a comment they hear stuff and they want to rebut that and it just goes on and on and then lin based the three minutes on five people had raised their hand and suddenly 30 people raised their hand because they want to rebut and have that public debate within public comment um and so i i don't know with with what we're talking about or deciding and discussing regarding a second sort of comment period for any one individual um how item e3 works into that um number one number two i again go back to if we want to say well everyone can speak twice what's the purpose of the second speaking i guess that that's what i'm struggling with what is the need for the second comment period is it to allow someone longer time to express their views if so we should just increase the amount of time of the public comment period from three minutes to something else if we're feeling three minutes is not enough um if the second public comment period is to allow someone to expand on their comments and make more lengthy comments just let them do that in the first place if it's to allow for the rebuttal and all that lin said well that's a different that's a different concept i would argue of public comment that almost becomes more like a public dialogue within a public comment period and i think we should discuss that what our goal of public comment periods or what the purpose of a public comment period is is it really for public dialogue or is it for public comment to the council i i want to add something to that that you triggered in me uh thinking about and i know i'm jumping the line but i'm going to take that and thanks michelle and um we are not allowed as counselors to debate what is said or comment on what's said in public comment periods um and certainly that mistake has been made i've made it at least once but once i think but so it is not a public debate public comment is not a debate period it's not a dialogue period between residents it is a period of time for the council to receive the concerns and opinions and desires of residents to listen carefully and to allow hopefully those things to affect decision making um where appropriate so i i'm really i think that we're accidentally creating and the more that we talk about public debate the more we're walking away from what public comment a public comment period is about so i'm kind of moving to a different place michelle and then jennifer yeah i appreciate that pat and i i was thinking about you know there are times i think maybe where a person gets up to give public comment and they've forgotten something they wanted to say or something comes to them as they're listening um it may not necessarily be to rebut what somebody said but it just like pat said what you said just triggered something in me and then she went on to say you know i think that can happen um but i actually i wanted to clarify jennifer were you saying that if we allowed two periods for everyone that you would want that to be able to expand beyond 120 minutes if it happened to well i think what we're if we say public comment can exceed 120 minutes then if we get to 120 minutes and everybody's spoken once then no one has a chance to speak again or if five people had a chance to speak a second time and they're still 10 exactly waiting to speak a second time right okay i can see where they're yeah i think we have to kind of choose how how yeah how to approach that okay jennifer something to have well i just feel like as we talk that maybe the simplest fairest i don't know why to do it is what we started with of everyone people would be permitted to yield one time to someone who's already spoken and again i don't think this comes up very often but no it will so so what if you know that's i think that's where we started maybe that i'm beginning to go back i'm beginning it's interesting because i'm moving to not allowing the yield um i'm not sure uh but the other thing is the public doesn't know that we have 120 minute rule so it seems to me that if we're going to say that we have 120 minutes and they're in our rules of procedure somehow rather that's got to be added to the statement about public comment which actually scares the behookies out of me because i feel like whoa who what if people decide oh like 120 120 minutes let's stack it so i'm wondering if that time period thing isn't a little dangerous is the wrong word because you know but the business of the council is to do its work part of its work is listening but it is not the only component in a council meeting and there there are other issues that we need to think about um michelle just real quick pad we don't have a we don't have 120 minute limit yet the council hasn't voted on that right right yeah we have right but it would have yes thank you but it would have to be announced it would have to be um all these rules somehow rather have to get out to the public and i think that's a positive thing michelle yeah just building on that a little bit pat and also thinking about andy's second comment at the end of our um meeting on monday i do think it would be really helpful for the presiding officer um before public comment begins to be clear just take two minutes to say very clearly what the rules are and to also say everybody is going to be treated equally here don't take it personally and if you get behind your time theme is going to move you back into the audience or whatever however you know just so that it's like clear so that lin or whoever the presiding officer is is not in a position where they're feeling it becomes personal like to them you know depending on who's speaking i think just saying right up front you have three minutes to speak everybody will be you know cut off no matter who you are you're my best friend or you're my worst enemy you're gone for three minutes um i think that would help because um it would sort of set the stage in a way i think i don't know lin if if we've just gotten used to maybe not uh just thinking that maybe folks already know what the rules are before public comment but a little statement might go a long way lin um i i like that suggestion uh it still doesn't resolve some of the level because of uh issues frankly that have come up when it is a person with a disability or a person who's BIPOC or something like that and maybe they needed a little more time or you know somebody who's never spoken before we've seen this they're obviously nervous they take a little more time um that's one issue another issue came up on monday night that i found extremely uncomfortable and and i just have to be honest and that is mendy dom who said she was going to try to be there in person had contacted me she ended up being delayed getting out of the state house in boston so she called from her car to make public comment in some arenas for example when you do a hearing at the state house even if you're on zoom all legislators speak first and then the general public speaks so now mendy is not quote a counselor but she is as is joe as frankly are our congressmen and our senators um you know they are people who are directly uh you know in in serious ways able to carry messages for us to the state house and in return carry back so i i felt even though i i don't think mendy could see the clock i have no idea if she could or not she i don't i think she may have been on i would didn't reinforce the three minutes as strongly as i should have that last night on monday night but i just felt uncomfortable i mean if that had been any of the other people i just mentioned i would be just as uncomfortable cutting them off but here's the problem when a representative is presenting they don't have a time limit she came in to public comment and if we treat her differently then we're open to attack for for other by other people the and this is what also came out of south borough the more consistent we can be no matter how uncomfortable it makes us the better for the progress of the meeting and better for the for residents who go oh wow this really is you know pretty important right now if we cut off a person of color we get one reaction and and although i feel like that's changed in the sense that what i've seen is that people were going okay it's three minutes and then boom it's not three minutes if she had come in to present even if we had interrupted public comment to have her present that's and and return to it but we cannot make those kinds of exceptions storing public comment and i feel you can tell i feel strongly about it and not you know it's and i understand i understand the discomfort i can see it on your face i can see it on the face of other counselors so i you know i appreciate that and it's hard yeah and i again we're not just making these rules for me we're making them for the entire every any yes yeah anybody who is presiding right and so i i just want to raise that issue and in this particular instance i feel that if i had put on the agenda if i had known 48 hours in advance that min that that's what mindy wanted to do if i had put that on as a special comment from Mindy Dom and it was completely about the ARPA money then why am i not i'm at that point i am totally advantaging her and disadvantageing all the others who who are speaking about the ARPA money so the thing is she didn't ask to have a presentation she asked for public comment and she needs to be treated like any other amherst resident which is what she is and and if she was going to ask my this is my point though if she was going to ask to have a special period of comment and i said to her well what will it be focused on and she says arpa then have i advantaged her to speak about arpa in a way i'm not advantaging other residents yeah no i hear that and that's why you know and that i stand corrected there but she asked to be part of public comment that's what i agree arpa funds i i'm just i have shared how i personally felt as the presiding officer that night cutting off our state representative well i've shared it i'd like to hear other comments okay mandy and then michelle and then jennifer i appreciate the difficulty as a presiding officer in cutting off anyone particularly someone who has an elected office higher than us or a staff member not during public comment right we have similar rules about three minutes for our own counselors and staff members in responding to stuff and all but to go back to lin's example of the state house hearings yes they may take other representatives and senators first at the hearings but they those representatives and senators still have to abide by the three-minute limit that everyone else has to and they they they can do it and they do do it because that's the expectation that has been that's the rules and the rules are enforced part of our issue here is that we have rules that are not enforced consistently and therefore are always up for argument that so-and-so or such-and-such community is being privileged or some voice is being privileged because we as presiding officers not just you lin at council meetings but we as presiding officers in public comment periods at committees and all are not fully consistent and that's part of the problem I'm not going to get into where Mindy should have potentially done her comments or what could have happened but she was making a comment during public comment period and everyone must follow those rules no matter their status of employee non-employee elected official non-elected official elected official from another town or not we have rules I feel like we need to enforce them and if a presiding officer is not comfortable enforcing them they need to find another way to consistently enforce them because it's their job as a presiding officer to enforce them be it themselves or find some other mechanism that is enforceable Michelle Lynn to your point about had Mindy contacted you I I couldn't really hear what Mindy was saying but I think there's a difference between coming and expressing an opinion you know in public comment even if it's on ARPA right so a difference between expressing an opinion or bringing you know the opinions of constituents forward and providing the council with valuable information in how they might approach the ARPA funds so had she come to you Lynn and said you know I have this valuable information that I think would help that's trickling down from the state or elsewhere in terms of approaching the distribution of funds I think that would have been perfectly reasonable to have only agenda to speak to that but it sounded like I could hear her right that she was expressing an opinion about how ARPA funds should be distributed and then in that case coming in through public comment is appropriate and then of course keeping her to the same rules of everyone else's is most appropriate too okay thank you for that insight from all of you so I want to now move to I'm not moving away I'm moving into this issue more okay mechanisms for limiting and whether or not perhaps there is another person who is designated on the counselor council to try to keep time versus the person who's also presiding and then and what do we do do we literally throw somebody off and put them in the audience do we mute them what are we planning to do that basically says you're done you've had your three minutes and I use those terms because it really feels rough mm-hmm it feels really rough thank you and just a quick point you can't mute people in person no that Jennifer go ahead I thought yeah I mean quiddathina I mean do any um councils have like a literally a buzzer that goes off or something that the clerk of the council you know like literally I think sometimes because we don't hear anything people may not be watching the clock um I mean if you heard like a bing then you know okay your time is off thank you yeah it's interesting because I feel like um I've watched people change they once they learn to use the clock and as a speaker they pay attention to it and people were paying attention to it uh on um one day yeah and I think Mindy couldn't see the clock if she was in her car yeah I no she probably couldn't but that's another that's beside the point but yeah well it's not beside the point but that it speaks to the fact that the presides the presiding officer or the designated person needed to interrupt um the other thing and I'm just going to throw this in as an aside we don't follow our own rules we have rules about liaisons that have been in place since the beginning of the council and there are counselors who refuse to follow those rules and does that mean we change the rule to fit because they're not following it or do we keep it in place I'm going to go to Athena and then Mandy and Michelle you're right lots of rules get broken um I can um I could play a sound I do have the the timer um change colors when you're getting close to the end of your time but Lynn I might suggest because you often say please wrap up you know when the timer turns yellow or red you have you know saying you have 15 seconds left or whatever and then when the timer gets to zero your time is up and that's it your time is up rather than please wrap up please wrap up please wrap up that's my suggestion yeah and it doesn't mean somebody's not going to go on forever but I think again it's a quality of consistency I think it's Mandy and Michelle oh sorry one more quick thing oh I'm sorry talking about how to deal with breaking rules uh and Pat your comment was that other counselors break rules and I just wanted to point out everybody breaks rules including you well I know I do well I go home and beat myself up about it afterwards anyway but also I mean committee reports are they're supposed to include motions those that doesn't always happen the committee reports are due at a certain time that doesn't always happen we're supposed to get materials out a certain number of days in advance and we know that doesn't happen I'm sending stuff out over the weekend so I think what you're talking about is specific to during council meetings but there are lots of other rules that don't apply during council meetings that get broken too and I'm not down to say that you have to talk about those today but yeah no it might be worth talking about that's for sure okay but you know I did not know because I didn't pay I didn't look at the rules uh that motions and needed to be included in the so well that I'm wagging my finger at you for not reading the rules all it's everyone's responsibility to know the it's councilor's responsibility to know the rules and then right how to how to enforce the rules yeah that's right and and so I have no excuse except that you guys were silly enough to pick me um manding then Michelle and then Lynn is your hand up to speak yes okay so I was going to suggest some of the things Athena did which is at least at council meetings a clock is run on the screen and that clock at 30 seconds left turns yellow and at 15 seconds left turns red and at zero it starts blinking red um at zero is too late to say time to wrap up at 30 or 15 seconds left someone and I believe it's the role of the presiding officer is the one that needs to say you need to wrap up you have 15 seconds left at zero you need to say your time is up and every five seconds after zero you need to continue to say your time is up or every 10 seconds some sort of consistent one to get the point across as a presiding officer in committee meetings that do interviews where there are time limits it is very uncomfortable to interrupt someone when you know they haven't finished what they wanted to say but if you're going to take on the role of presiding officer I personally believe this is one of the roles you take on enforcement of the rules no matter how uncomfortable enforcement of the rules becomes I think a buzzer would help a little ding at 30 seconds another ding at 15 and then something in rock climbing that I now do where they have time limits and you are off the wall at the end of your time limits and nothing counts at the end of the time limits the last five seconds each get a ding beep beep beep beep beep and you know your time is up so I think there's ways to audibly indicate to everyone and then with a with a timer a neutral timer that is not a voice but the voice is extremely important and that I think should come from the presiding officer it's easy to say mute someone on zoom because we have the ability to do that but then you're treating the zoom participants differently than those in person because you can't unless unless the presiding officer or someone near the mic is literally going to walk up to that desk and hit the mic button and that still doesn't necessarily stop them from talking but at least it stops them from being broadcast you can't treat the zoom people the same as the in person people if you're cutting mics unless a presiding officer or someone has control of the mic at that chair and could remotely turn it off like you can on zoom and maybe that's possible I don't know that means they're still sitting there and you have to move on might be while they're sitting there and you move on to a zoom person but it can be done it's uncomfortable um you know it is uncomfortable I I hate doing it myself I really do but to treat everyone the same and in interviews it becomes really important to treat everyone the same you can't give someone five minutes and another person three minutes um because they're interviewing yeah I think you've made your point um so I'm cutting you off uh because I break the rules um Michelle and I'm also I'm quickly wondering what were the town meeting rules that the community yeah and Michelle yeah I want to support the audible buzzer I've seen that they use it in Northampton um it works really well um and it it sort of takes the personal piece out of it for the presiding officer um it's I think probably I don't I don't know but I would imagine it's a little more I mean Athene is the one that has to really deal with the clock and resetting it but that's you know I I do support the audible buzzer the other thing I think is it's important to remember I don't know how many of you um set your timer when you're reading written public comment I I don't um so people can go on for 20 minutes in their written public comment and we're going to read it because that's our responsibility so I think encouraging people or like differentiating to people that one if you haven't gotten anything everything out in your three minutes please write to us um and you can take all the time in the world and we're going to read it and number two you know there is sort of a potentially just a distinction between what you might be able to get across in your written public comment like even in Mindy's case which was she had a lot to say you know and many people do um from what point you might be making in your public comment at a meeting and so just like reminding people that you you write to us and you've got all the time in the world and just I think that that's a good encouragement you know that we can make okay Jennifer and then yeah I just wanted to say like as Michelle said um I think the the audible um buzzer could be very helpful and it does I think it's just too easy to ignore even the presiding officer saying you have 30 more seconds you hear the buzzer and it kind of tells everyone that your time is up so I would support that Ben um this has been very helpful I want to ask that in the interest of respecting those people who are blind and colorblind that we do have a buzzer uh that uh it goes off at 30 seconds before the end that as presiding officer or that the presiding offer officer uh say something at 15 seconds and then and it it's a red light and then it's you know and then red lights and red blinking lights and then end and that we obviously be working on my script for the seventh where I lay this out um and because none of this has to be in the rules by the way um it I think it needs to be though it as much as we can needs to be in the rules but we don't have to pass these rules to do another trial at town at town council meeting we can try this at the coming meeting yes yes you know reinforce the many ways in which you can get our attention through a public comment written and or otherwise and so let me work with Athena I also just need to ask Athena when you are in a council meeting if you don't have an assistant does one of the assistant's job is that they can relieve you and setting resetting the clock or do they reset the clock or how do you do that because I know sometimes you can't get to resetting the clock because you're doing something else um no when I have a minute that just take minutes um it's easier to to do multiple things when I have um someone doing minutes for me but um hopefully I'll have a replacement for Kelly sooner than later and I'll have to figure out how to do so right now the way the timer works is that it's um a virtual camera so it's replacing the the front-facing camera that I have on my computer so I'll have to figure out a different way because I can't do unaudible buzzer so I'll have to do something different and it might end up being a share screen of a timer instead so that I can enable the sound um so uh that might be something that we need to try not on the seventh but the meeting following because I won't be at the seventh um thank you so so we can try that and see how that goes um thank you but I I think not having a minute take her at the same time is you know maybe shouldn't be part of the consideration because it's something we have to work out I want to say something directly to you Lynn thank you for the work you do as the presiding officer it is difficult it's difficult as a human being to sit there it's difficult to receive criticism from people publicly it's difficult to have residents be angry at you because you're asking them to stop uh at a proposed timeline or something so I don't want us to lose track of what it feels like to do the work that you're doing and the chairs of committees have the same also yes yes uh are we going to try to finish this section and what are we finishing and we've had you know we've kind of wandered a little bit through various topics I want to suggest we go back and see what we can do to finish this section uh that's a good idea uh what I got what I have um is that there seems to be a consensus about an audible buzzer as being valuable and important um and that uh the buzzer goes off 30 seconds before the end of the person's time a lot of time at the end of when their time is uh down to 15 seconds the presiding officer says and then we have the red blinking lights is that feel at 15 seconds the presiding officer says you have 15 seconds to wrap up at the time the blinking light goes off the presiding officer says your time is up and the second and they keep saying that whether it's every five seconds or whatever yeah or just stops who knows um well but you have to make sure we don't treat people on zoom different differently yes yes you're absolutely right are people comfortable with what just got laid out in terms of the buzzer the notifying a speaker that um about the timeframe uh warning them as they go through is there any disagreement about that do we need to make this as a motion or how does this so I would suggest that you include it in your GOL report for the next meeting and then you know before public comment begins um we could even put a little GOL update before public comment just to make that announcement so that it's clear before it happens next time but um also like I mentioned I won't be able to do the buzzer and so forth at the August 7th meeting so if GOL has um recommendations for rule changes um maybe that should start the second meeting of August I'm not sure if that's up to you Athena is Kelly going to fill in on the 7th no so that means Paul or I have to work the buzzer well my suggestion is not to implement that on the 7th because we have to work the clock neither of you are set up to do the clock the way I have it set up so we can talk about that during agenda setting for the 7th but it's going to thank you I'm not sure how much you want to manage during that meeting you've thank you you've said that you don't want staff you you don't want to ask people to come and attend so I mean do you and Paul want to learn down into everything that I do before the August 7th that's a question for you and Paul um so and then if and then if that's if if this body wants to make recommendations for the 7th I'm just letting you know that might be difficult to implement on the 7th um and if you're gonna have actual recommendations for rule changes uh that may be that come up on the at the next meeting right thank you Amanda so I'm confused are we trying to write these potential how you manage the three minutes as a presiding officer into the rules that's what that is what Athena was suggesting I know I wasn't suggesting the buzzer and everything in the rules I was saying that if you have um um if you want to implement the audible buzzer and so forth that I won't be able to do that at the 7th and I'm not sure that Paul or Lynn can juggle that at the 7th um so we could we could try that out at the second meeting in August but then if you had recommendations for rule changes that you want to bring to the 7th um I mean you can either bring those to the 7th or the next meeting so I can bring the suggestions without actually trying it out at the 7th right that could be part of the GOL report okay and there's part of this that you know I before we had the clock um and we were during COVID so we were virtual I would use my own you know yeah but there was a time I think you asked Andy you asked me once I think that you're looking at your clock while you're trying to preside it doesn't work um no Mandy we're not trying to write it in the rules yeah but I do want to get back to the things that we may want to write into the rules which is uh the idea of yielding or not having yielding number of times any person can speak etc do you have anything that you wanted to add Mandy I don't believe I've changed my position on that part okay so um where are we about allowing yielding maybe that's what we need to come to some kind of resolution about right now Jennifer so I thought maybe where we got to was not allowing it at all allowing yielding once to someone who's already spoken or allowing everyone to have the second time to speak I thought we were down to those three options and I personally am um open to the second the last two either allowing one time to yield to someone who's already spoken or giving everyone a chance to speak a second time and maybe that second time is only two minutes I am not allowed I am not in support of having everyone have an opportunity to speak twice um I think I can deal with one yield you might you might include this in a GO or GOL report and ask for council feedback because it sounds like there's okay not consensus you don't have to make a decision today if you want just a suggestion thank you thank you okay what else do we need to look at around this issue right now or make or try to come to a decision about Michelle had her hand up I don't know whether she wanted to speak about this oh I didn't see it I'm sorry no worries I put it down pat I was I was just going to support the one yield um as a compromise to this as well but I think Athena made a good suggestion to get more feedback as well yeah all right uh where are we then are we moving on or Mandy do you still have sections of this that you oh there are if if Athena pages down I I think it's I don't know what the blue if she finds the next blue I think I'm blue in her document so there was one she just I clarified that the general public comment period here um there could be other public comment periods on specific agenda items to clarify that um that's a simple change um further I think the next set of changes is really rule six for for what I I did in response to GLL's discussions there are other changes here I don't know whether we've talked about right and yeah there is really quickly so we're going to six or is that I wrote that that's where most of the changes yes yeah I want to go very quickly to I believe a six point four um very quickly because there's we have civility in there and we do need to take that out um but we can start up at the top I just don't want to lose track of that so Mandy do you want to speak to the changes in blue um sure so um this one was slightly harder right um because we had mixed a whole lot of different types of conduct throughout the different rules um and and it was trying to find a way to to address all of them so I think I caught you know um I captured I think I captured most of the discussion six point one is now related to essentially meeting participants that are participating in the meeting outside of general public comment so that would be counselors that would be staff that are invited that would be any presenters that would be any um other members of committees that might be holding a joint meeting with us um that that's what six point one is intended to capture conduct of those individuals um six point two I renamed or I guess Athena renamed it um six point two is meant for people in the audience how are they supposed to you know what what is their conduct so outside of the public comment period sitting in the audience um and then six point three is also additional rules for counselor conduct outside of six point one well actually six point one is non-counselor invited speakers six point three is counselor again it gets kind of hippy right um but that's sort of what we were talking about so a lot of things are repeated within the within each section I believe um as we had talked about but that's that's sort of the order yeah and I want to say about the order um we had a resident who came forward and talked about the order in a in terms of the first people who need to behave themselves appropriately are counselors and then so that she feels like six point three should be six point one and then move to presenters and audience and that seems like a minor thing but I think that she's right um so I'd like to see that change happen as well I would agree but I didn't think that was within my purview of what I was assigned to do but I did think it weird that we had counselors last and I thought it should be first too so I would agree that and in turn yeah and not because we're privileged but because we're the ones who really need to learn how to behave um so six point one would become six point two and six point two would be six point three I'm sorry Lynn I can't I did then were you speaking no okay there's some background okay oh sorry that might be me I I forgot to mute my mouse is being weird so I can't make it's difficult to make that change right now but I'll I made a yeah okay I should have made that later um is there anything else in six point three that we counselor found out here we go yeah on f so I think f just combines g into f yeah and and h or the old i some of that um we did we had identified that some things were sort of repeated three times yeah okay anybody have any issue with any of these um did did we talk about something um uh engage in personalities or something like that other body was that in here Mandy h talks about ad hominem comments for counselors can we use um english should not let sure mean comments means attacking even even engage in personalities is a personal attacks could also I don't know however you I mean yeah up to you if you want to use ad hominem or not but I like it I like it I studied Latin and Greek back in high school miss Ludwig um so I do people want to keep that or do you want to add to change it to disparaging language or whatever okay let's leave it because I like it can we can we keep scrolling I'd like to go to six point four oh wait we have to talk about one and two Pat sorry there were a number of changes there oh yes okay sorry uh so you're so my scrolling is weird I'm sorry yeah so the goal of six point are we starting at six point one okay um this was the invited speaker so you'll see some of the same sort of um some same language especially in item d mirrors the language in item h for counselors the ad hominem comments and insulting threatening or abusive language so we should make sure those two lines agree whatever it is as I said you'll see um so e is a repeat of something I added up in the initial rules the cell phones that is also up um in the general right under rule six before you get to six point one so I don't know I didn't know whether people wanted it to apply to everyone um where it would be listed in six write a one more line up Athena if you can um right there oh yes where it says cell phones that's the exact same thing as listed in six point one e I don't think we need to list it twice um it's just who do you want the cell phone silencing to apply to everyone or just certain people I think it should apply to everyone you know if you have yeah Michelle okay um so the ruling that we have been talking about in relation to public comment um is that just like did that ruling come out just with respect to a public comment period or because an invited speaker or presenter could be a member of the public so if a member of the public is coming and then we're saying you have to follow these rules you know that it sounds to me like the ruling that we were talking about is in opposition to that so does anyone know if the ruling was um limited to public comment period or or was it expanded to just include public at a meeting I thought it was only public comment periods but perhaps we should look go back and look yeah I'm sorry I didn't read it no no that's fine so I just I want to because I think we could step into something here if you know you know depending on who the invited speaker or presenter or panelist is if they're a member of the public and if they go off on something and then we ask them to follow the rules have we violated that ruling I know if I did speaker is very go ahead Lynn and then Mandy whichever I'm glad I'm glad the invited speaker issues come up because I'd like to suggest two additions here one is that the presiding officer be informed that there will be an invited speaker and there's an agreed upon way in which that let me just ramble a moment okay and then figure out how we want to do it but the the presiding officer should be informed shall be informed that there is going to be an invited speaker and with the presenting counselor agree upon what role that person is going to play and how much time they will have for it and you know I'm not being critical here but maybe I missed an email but you know all of a sudden on the recent stretch code discussion I find out there was an invited speaker and I was ready to move the thing to another night and the invited speaker unknown to me sitting in the back of the room so I I just felt a little on you know it it led to just some confusion that's all so I I would like to also agree in cases of invited speakers does this include staff and are there see what I've tried to do when I know in advance that something's going to happen is I sometimes even have a meeting with the group I often send an email that says and make sure that you know all handouts or screen or slide presentations are sent to myself and Athena by Wednesday of the week before the week before the meeting you know so I go through a whole process and I want to make sure that who do we agree is invited speakers are they also staff and where does the issue of time limits in addition to their behavior go maybe it's not even in this section this is really code of conduct it's not about invited speakers it's not about additional people being added to the agenda and and let me just add to this because it's happens more and more frequently and that is committees who want to present to the council and the extent to which you know I mean basically you know I have an example example right now one of the committee's ECAC wants to present their annual report and they want to present their recommendations for the town council for the town manager's upcoming evaluation and I've said five minutes here five minutes there and said either the September 11th or September 18th meeting now I think I have the right to do that but if the council through the rules of procedure wants to also lay out guidance for the presiding officer about committees then also include that this is again this is maybe not even in this section thank you but it does seem to me we are talking about invited speakers and there's a hop back in my mind to the Human Rights Commission report and nothing happening with it so I think that it is important to look at this and possibly look at it here Mandy I'm going to go all over the place on this so item F in 6.1 I think actually belongs in 6.3 well or or go ahead go ahead I'm just yeah now or belongs it refers to councillors so yeah related to item 6.1 or belongs up above but it's one where members of the public not hold private conversations well that's an audience thing and they might be able to as long as they're not disruptive right so I don't think it belongs in 6.2 about audience conduct but probably belongs in both 6.1 and 3 but reworded um item D and 6.1 is just missing a period at the end of it I think cell phones being silenced should apply to everyone so I would delete it from 6.1 and keep it up above in the general six rules that are just out there my intention with this section 6.1 was that it applies to everyone that is not a councillor that is a participant in a meeting outside of public comment and to address um outside of the general public comment period or the public comment period I didn't know how to word that but that was the question the question becomes and this was another thing I struggled with can we combine 6.1 and 6.3 for anyone outside of that general public comment period who is in the meeting and we might be able to combine them for everyone not just councillors we have council time limits we can have presentation time limits for the presentation and then for the responses to questions right um all of that can be written in it just depends on how far we want to go um I'm fine with Lynn's suggestion of adding that um the presiding officer needs to be informed of intended speakers outside of councillors for presentations whether that be staff members which I figured included in this or whether that be the situation we had with the um specialized stretch code um where the councillor who proposed it had invited a member of ECAC to do the main presentation I've done it myself with lighting presentations right now we all sometimes do it we're not necessarily the expert can someone from the public do it um I would agree the chair should have the the presiding officer should have knowledge of that um yeah I agree Jennifer and then Athena yeah I agree with what Mandy and Lynn said I would have I would have assumed the presiding officer would know if there was a speaker outside the council um but I do think that we should include committees here or someplace in the bylaw so that there's a um there's a policy about committees making presentations or reports so some there's not a feeling some are favored or given special treatment over others you mean non-council committees yeah yes non-council committees right right maybe it needs to say something like non-council committee who wish to re present their report publicly to the council or something like that um should notify the speaker the presiding officer in advance request that from the presiding officer yeah I I do not want to open the door that every committee is going to come to the council and present there is already some assumption like that for lots of committees but it would have to be there would have to be some policy so every committee felt like they were being treated able and they request right well I remember in the very first year I at one point tried to map every committee in the town to a council committee actually Dorothy Pam and I tried to do that and it was almost impossible if I could find my notes Athena um that that was an awkward situation that came up with the stretch code I would say that it's the presiding officer who invites presenters so without an invitation you're a member of the public and you know if you had asked me at that point in the meeting I would have said are you allowing everyone in the public to make a presentation or speak during this time because without that invitation they're a member of the public so um you know if if somebody had brought that up I would have said that's out of order but and then I think you you said something else and it's slipping my mind right now but I don't I don't think that rule needs changing invited speakers that the presiding officer is the one who's sending the invitation so so you would know and it would be part of the meeting planning like you do now with everyone else just to add to that it's interesting when we were all virtual it was you had to know because that person had to be sent an invitation now that we're back mostly in the room which I'm really enjoying all of us being there as many of us they can uh it's it's not as easily done somebody just can be in the audience and you don't even realize they're an invited speaker but being in the audience doesn't make them an invited speaker absolutely not I agree Athena do you have more maybe um okay I I my brain's not fully functional this morning I've only had four hours of sleep so if it comes back to me I'll try and I'll try and bring it up again but not not at the moment thanks Mandy yeah I would just request as we look at this for next time the the committee looked to see whether 6.1 and 6.3 really are one in the same um essentially where invited the invited people as and counselors should really just be one rule um because it might simplify the rules a little bit a lot of the stuff is double double written anyway right but I don't think we're ready to do that now but it's something as I was writing on that I was like could these be the same but I didn't want to make too many changes outside the committee atop yeah and it yeah uh was someone up before your Lynn if I lost them if they were Lynn I don't think so um the other topic I brought up was you know committees who say oh we'd like to come before the council and generally I've tried to just use my own discretion uh but um does the council want to provide guidance to the presiding officer on the charter has a has a section that um covers how people request an agenda item and then it's the president's discretion whether or not to place that on the agenda right okay thank you if that if that request goes to the full council via email it's still up to the presiding officer or the president whether you want to place that on the agenda okay thank you uh and I must admit I support the idea of combining 6.1 the current 6.1 or the yeah and 6.3 into one rule uh because we are all talking about people who are in some way whether it's a counselor an invited speaker are presenting during the council meeting um I think the publics should be a separate section but should be very reflective of the same behavior that we are requiring of counselors um and we should be required to have the same guidelines that the public has that there shouldn't be a distinction in how we can behave um okay keep going Mandy are we I think we're on the 6.2 um which is audience conduct this one has you'll see a lot of red and all um I I created a new B I think it is or maybe it's part of A I'm not sure but where we're referencing or we had created it during um I guess red blue is me right so reference rule 5.1 regarding the rules for general public comment everything else in red I guess is what we talked about before I was tasked with trying to come up with something I thought that was important to do that reference um because we're removing the rules of public comment away from rule 6.2 and making clear that 6.2 is conduct during meetings not the general public comment period um so that that's why the public comment focus on got moved over to rule 5 and deleted here to not confuse those two sections um I think those are the only changes in 6.2 for audience conduct that we didn't discuss because I think all the red was discussed at meetings I think that's true I don't know whether we've there's an agreement about everything in red this is like an endless uh whirlpool um so shall we move on yeah I think that's all I did based on those discussions you wanted something on 6.4 on 6.4 I found civility still in there 6.4 uh let me hold on yeah uh the president of residing officer shall preserve civility and order and may speak to so uh the word civility is anathema right now so what do we mean there I think we just delete the word civility and preserve just preserve order that's okay with me anybody else and there I think we I think that's what's legal now so we yeah no much choice okay so shall we move on when so are we ready to go do we want to move into motions uh it might be it might be worth mentioning briefly that you know we took we just talked about civility during council discussion and so on and and how the president or presiding officer maintained civility during those discussions so you know engaging in personalities or or add comment comments no um I mean I guess a counselor could just call a point of order or the president could could interject at that point but that hasn't been a practice so without getting more specific in that rule I I guess it's the councils yeah maybe I don't need to say anything sorry no I don't apologize Pat I have my hand up because okay I'm reading that's why I didn't see go ahead when it's it's 1115 you still need to make public comment and I think we need to decide um I have a hard stop at 1130 okay so uh let's stop here I think this is a good stopping place thank you Lynn and um I see one person uh one in the attendees and if that that person would like um before that Mandy yeah I just want to know so it sounds like we're moving rules is that something that that the committee once done for a new draft of this for next time with in other words should I be redrafting and taking and combining rules 6.3 and 1 for next meeting yes Athena can you send me the document then so thanks thanks and thank you Mandy Athena would you send all all of the other people I send it to all of us I I'm just like yeah this is trying to find a bunch of changes I just like to take a look at the whole thing again sure I'll I'll send it around and I'll add this edited draft to this meeting back in thank you very much thank you um and I'm going to say that there's one person in the attendees and if they would like to make public comment now I am calling the public comment period here so um I will wait a moment and give that person a chance to decide whether they'd like to speak or not and again it can be on any issue um that the GOL committee deals with not necessarily what we're talking about right now okay it does not look like there is public comment today um so I uh Lynn has a hard stop it's 11 17 now um I'm kind of open to adjourning the meeting I think that we've done a lot of work so far this morning um I'd love to hear if there's an agreement about that or people want to use the last few minutes I think I mentioned I think before we got started that the final draft of the draft minutes wasn't done so right yeah yeah so that'll be coming to us at our next meeting yeah Lynn so just let me clarify at our next meeting um we will have the bylaw and my question it's a question will we have the bylaw and we don't know yet and now you're talking about the zoning proposal I think yeah because we're ready for their along we'll move to the other bylaws now that you know have been resting out there for five years four years and the third thing is we'll come back on the rules is that my understanding of that meeting thank you so the only thing that got moved is the zoning proposal review Jennifer um if the zoning review so I'm if let's say it wasn't ready for our next meeting would that would we then not have to have an April's an August 7th council meeting because I think there were two items on that agenda the street on that agenda to yeah there are three items on that agenda one is the street lighting and the other is I just looked at that this morning um the other is leftover bylaws which we may or may not be ready with and until I know whether or not we are going to have the zoning bylaws at this point we'll keep that meeting on the calendar as president I would be inclined to cancel that meeting if we don't have the bylaws okay Michelle did we uh do the finance committee appointment while I was gone or that oh okay who is that appointed I don't know some strangers Bob Eggner and Matt Holloway were only two there were only those two openings and only two applicants we put sent out I think like I sent out 11 or 11 to 13 emails to people who had previously said they were interested in got no response so we made that decision thank you yeah and we and there are good people so it's great anything else well I am going to call the meeting of the GOL um anyway it's adjourned I want to say thanks to Mandy Joe for getting back bylaws and Pat for picking this back up again today we've had a good discussion yeah really good discussion but you know it's I appreciate it I I must say working on these rules is frustrating because we do all this work it comes to the council and some of it gets passed some of it doesn't and nobody follows them anyway so and I'm talking only about counselors right now not the general public all right thank you all very much thank you Athena thank you and will you send me the link as usual yes I will thank you Jennifer did you have anything else no I'm trying to sign off here okay bye